Dallas Resigns

[Christ_Puncher]

I think we should stop this conversation right now, these people are not worthy of our contempt let alone our conversation. We should just leave them to it, ignore it and get on with our lives

[Blackpool Jags]

indeed. analysis would sell neither tickets for the growing number of empty seats nor newsrags.

 

may the hairs on their heads turn into drumsticks and beat their brains out.

 

Love that comment. ....and agree with it.

[Steven H]

I think we should stop this conversation right now, these people are not worthy of our contempt let alone our conversation. We should just leave them to it, ignore it and get on with our lives

 

This post, plus others you have put in this thread, endorse the Celtic stance but you should take off the blinkers.

 

Dougie Dougie had no option but to resign because he lied about the making of a decision and, regardless who the teams involved are, that quite rightly calls his integrity into question. It gets me asking questions of the Dundee Utd goal last season for a start! The fact it was a decision in a Celtic game is irrelevant (although Celtic and their fans have you believing differently), it's the fact he lied that's the issue.

 

The fact he done so in relation to a decision regarding Celtic was plain stupid (given the conspiracy theory Celtic and their fans have harboured for as long as I can remember) and quite rightly calls his judgement into question. That's where the Celtic connection begins and ends! If they didn't have this conspiracy mentally then I guess his judgement wouldn't be questioned...only his integrity .

 

Hugh Dallas sent an email, it was silly and he should've known better but the Tom English fella (see Tom Hosie's link) has that situation bang on.If it wasn't for Celtic's tokenistic association with the Catholic religion and the Pope (because that's what it is these days), and if it wasn't for the Dougie situation where Celtic seem to see it as justification for their conspiracy theory, then Im not so sure there'd be such a stooshie over it.

 

Long story short, Celtic's involvement in the Dougie McDonald thing is irrelevant and there 'triumphantism' over Hugh Dallas is down to their own bigot driven association with Catholicism (sp?) and there own chip on the shoulder attitude regaqrding the world being against them. I know Catholics who have forwarded that email, should they now find a new religion to follow because of the sectarian undertones of said email and the insult towards the Pope?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Steven H

[jimdelahunt]

Ah'm gay!

[Blackpool Jags]

Ah'm gay!

 

Of course you are, even your avatar exudes am image of unbridled happiness.

[NZ Jag]

For those that haven't read it already this is well worth a read.

 

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/celticfc/Tom-English-39In-effect-they.6642373.jp?articlepage=1

 

 

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[crazy davie]

This post, plus others you have put in this thread, endorse the Celtic stance but you should take off the blinkers.

 

Dougie Dougie had no option but to resign because he lied about the making of a decision and, regardless who the teams involved are, that quite rightly calls his integrity into question. It gets me asking questions of the Dundee Utd goal last season for a start! The fact it was a decision in a Celtic game is irrelevant (although Celtic and their fans have you believing differently), it's the fact he lied that's the issue.

 

The fact he done so in relation to a decision regarding Celtic was plain stupid (given the conspiracy theory Celtic and their fans have harboured for as long as I can remember) and quite rightly calls his judgement into question. That's where the Celtic connection begins and ends! If they didn't have this conspiracy mentally then I guess his judgement wouldn't be questioned...only his integrity .

 

Hugh Dallas sent an email, it was silly and he should've known better but the Tom English fella (see Tom Hosie's link) has that situation bang on.If it wasn't for Celtic's tokenistic association with the Catholic religion and the Pope (because that's what it is these days), and if it wasn't for the Dougie situation where Celtic seem to see it as justification for their conspiracy theory, then Im not so sure there'd be such a stooshie over it.

 

Long story short, Celtic's involvement in the Dougie McDonald thing is irrelevant and there 'triumphantism' over Hugh Dallas is down to their own bigot driven association with Catholicism (sp?) and there own chip on the shoulder attitude regaqrding the world being against them. I know Catholics who have forwarded that email, should they now find a new religion to follow because of the sectarian undertones of said email and the insult towards the Pope?

That is the beginning and end of it. Superb.

[wes]

No, it's a definition of a closed mind. Bigotry is when you take action against people because of who or what you preceive them to be ... denying them jobs or promotions for instance or in extreme cases actually attacking them physically.

 

As for the good the church does. From what I've seen of the history of the church (not just the Catholic church but all churches in general) when good gets done, it's because of good individuals within the church. Down through history they've all, all denominations, supported persecution, war and the powerful against the weak. (Perhaps we could leave the Quakers out but they're pretty small).

 

Thanks again for the clarification.

 

I guess therefore if someone posts derogatory remarks on a public forum it can be regarded as "tak(ing) action against people because of who or what you preceive them to be", particularly when these remarks are one sided. As it seems the laudable elements of church work is because of good individuals within the church, and the unsavory actions are somehow different in that they appear to be carried out not by bad individuals within the church (as is the opposite case with good work?), but by the institution. I really don't follow where the difference is.

 

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the remarks made by Gianlucatoni may be construed as bigotry as defined by you.

The old firm gatherings where the obvious hatred and bigotry is sometimes justified by those involved as "90 minute bigotry" is still bigotry. They simply don't see it. In the same way the comments made on this forum may not been seen by the originator as bigotry and I would hope that they were not intended as such. However, unfortunately they have all the appearance of it.

 

I really hope this is not the case.

[gianlucatoni]

Thanks again for the clarification.

 

I guess therefore if someone posts derogatory remarks on a public forum it can be regarded as "tak(ing) action against people because of who or what you preceive them to be", particularly when these remarks are one sided. As it seems the laudable elements of church work is because of good individuals within the church, and the unsavory actions are somehow different in that they appear to be carried out not by bad individuals within the church (as is the opposite case with good work?), but by the institution. I really don't follow where the difference is.

 

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the remarks made by Gianlucatoni may be construed as bigotry as defined by you.

The old firm gatherings where the obvious hatred and bigotry is sometimes justified by those involved as "90 minute bigotry" is still bigotry. They simply don't see it. In the same way the comments made on this forum may not been seen by the originator as bigotry and I would hope that they were not intended as such. However, unfortunately they have all the appearance of it.

 

I really hope this is not the case.

 

 

I really don't get all the bigotry discussion on here - some are dealing with it on a far too simplistic level.

 

Firstly I would like to say that I would be equally unhappy with any political or religious organisation sticking their noses into the national game here (or anywhere).

 

I was unhappy at the intrusion of the RC church in the internal dealings of a football organisation. In going public with their comments they were trying to make sure that they got the usual knee-jerk media reaction - which worked - but surely you (and the others) can see that the church's media office should have had a discussion and kept their counsel on this one. Giving the biblical analogy of the adulterous woman, the media reported the incident and brought the RC church to the stoning ground where they happily cast the first stone.

 

They decided against letting the SFA get on with their disciplinary procedure and went public with their ridiculous indignation at what was both an ill-advised (as I have already said) but satirically funny email on a topic - very loosely - related to them.

 

The tone of their communication was equally ill-advised and worded such that they did not list all of the good things related to Scottish football and the good it does in the community in giving children and recovering addicts the chance to get regular sport and the benefits that brings - or teams that unite a community.

 

No they decided to hone in on retribution and justice and focus on the negative so please forgive me if I failed to mention any positives relating to the RC church but when they decided to meddle with an external organisation (as decrepit as the SFA is) and demand they get their house in order then they are simply open season as their house is an absolute shambles and the church's negatives therefore merit being mentioned.

 

Please feel free however to call me a bigot or a factual bigot if it you like - I'll turn the other cheek.

Edited December 1, 2010 by gianlucatoni

[Mr Bunny]

Thanks again for the clarification.

 

I guess therefore if someone posts derogatory remarks on a public forum it can be regarded as "tak(ing) action against people because of who or what you preceive them to be", particularly when these remarks are one sided. As it seems the laudable elements of church work is because of good individuals within the church, and the unsavory actions are somehow different in that they appear to be carried out not by bad individuals within the church (as is the opposite case with good work?), but by the institution. I really don't follow where the difference is.

 

It is reasonable therefore to conclude that the remarks made by Gianlucatoni may be construed as bigotry as defined by you.

The old firm gatherings where the obvious hatred and bigotry is sometimes justified by those involved as "90 minute bigotry" is still bigotry. They simply don't see it. In the same way the comments made on this forum may not been seen by the originator as bigotry and I would hope that they were not intended as such. However, unfortunately they have all the appearance of it.

 

I really hope this is not the case.

 

 

Some people on this forum may be bigots for all I know ... I can't read minds. Some people are definitely careless in tarring everybody with the same brush and forgetting there are lots of decent Old Firm supporters (albeit I might think with a blind spot about the actions and attitudes of some of their fellow supporters).

 

As for the Catholic Church, to mention the most recent trouble there, it was bad people within the Church that committed crimes against children, not the Church. However the Church as an organisation decided to cover these crimes up. I could go through history and point out things done by the Catholic Church and its leaders that to my mind were despicable but I won't, I'll just say that you only have to look at guys like Ian Paisley, some of the Fundamentalist protestant churches in the US and of course Islamic fundamentalists to see that the Catholic Church has no monopoly in this.

 

You could point to business and governement organsiations which have done very bad things too but they generally (note, generally, not never) don't try to take the moral high ground and tell folk how to live their lives as religions always do.

[GrantB]

So Dallas gets the sack for an email that most of the country had a good laugh at. Sad. I posted it on ly facebook on the day of the Pope's visit. Should I get he sack too?

 

With McDonald now gone, I wonder if the SFA will now have to run all refereeing appointments past John Reid and Neil Lennon first? That's the way we are headed.

 

Celtic are a cancer on the game and I wish they (and their equally odious cousins from accross the Clyde) would shrivel up and die. The pair of them make me sick to the pit of my stomach.

[Dr.D]

Yes and when are we going to confer Sainthoods on the reptiles among the Thistle support spouting their venom at the Stirling game 23/10/10?

Let him who cast the first stone,etc.

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

So Dallas gets the sack for an email that most of the country had a good laugh at. Sad. I posted it on ly facebook on the day of the Pope's visit. Should I get he sack too?

 

With McDonald now gone, I wonder if the SFA will now have to run all refereeing appointments past John Reid and Neil Lennon first? That's the way we are headed.

 

Celtic are a cancer on the game and I wish they (and their equally odious cousins from accross the Clyde) would shrivel up and die. The pair of them make me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Dallas and McDonald should have resigned the moment the veracity of their account of what happened at Tannadice came into question.

 

Poor Shug, poor Dougie. What about the linesman who was forced to give up a career in the game because of their lies?

[GrantB]

Dallas and McDonald should have resigned the moment the veracity of their account of what happened at Tannadice came into question.

 

Poor Shug, poor Dougie. What about the linesman who was forced to give up a career in the game because of their lies?

 

I couldn't give a tom tit about poor wee Sellick being lied to. Are they the only club this has happened to? I can think of countless examples of Thistle being the victims of far worse miscarriages of justice than a penalty decision that they got RIGHT.

 

We were relegated at the same ground by a penalty decision that they got wrong. A far more serious offence than the Dougie McDonald incident.

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

I couldn't give a tom tit about poor wee Sellick being lied to.

Spectacularly missing the point, as per.

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

Are they the only club this has happened to?

But getting warmer.

[Ember]

One point of the whole Tannadice affair that seems to have been steadfastly ignored by all is WHY the officals did what they did. They didn't have to as their decision is final so they could have simply told Lennon to quit his whinging. Has it not occurred to anyone that the reason they got themselves in this mess is that they didn't fancy the inevitable flak (and more) that would have come their way from both the media and, more importantly, the knuckledragging element of Celtic's support i.e. McDonald looks for for a bit of support from his assistant who in turn thinks "feck that, I'm not getting my windows panned in for this."

[gianlucatoni]

One point of the whole Tannadice affair that seems to have been steadfastly ignored by all is WHY the officals did what they did. They didn't have to as their decision is final so they could have simply told Lennon to quit his whinging. Has it not occurred to anyone that the reason they got themselves in this mess is that they didn't fancy the inevitable flak (and more) that would have come their way from both the media and, more importantly, the knuckledragging element of Celtic's support i.e. McDonald looks for for a bit of support from his assistant who in turn thinks "feck that, I'm not getting my windows panned in for this."

 

 

McDonald had every right as the referee to change his mind on a decision. here's an excerpt from the rules relating to referees:

 

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including

whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

 

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

 

All he had to do was to write up the report truthfully and submit it in good faith - problem arose as he was being assessed in the game from the stands and probably felt his appraisal would fall below 8/10 hence kick-starting the nonsense of the last few weeks.

[Stephen1876]

One point of the whole Tannadice affair that seems to have been steadfastly ignored by all is WHY the officals did what they did. They didn't have to as their decision is final so they could have simply told Lennon to quit his whinging. Has it not occurred to anyone that the reason they got themselves in this mess is that they didn't fancy the inevitable flak (and more) that would have come their way from both the media and, more importantly, the knuckledragging element of Celtic's support i.e. McDonald looks for for a bit of support from his assistant who in turn thinks "feck that, I'm not getting my windows panned in for this."

 

I've been making this excellent point to my m8s for weeks and no one else seems to understand it. Clearly, refs are terrified of the consequences of making a decision against the OF

[The Incredible Adam Spark]

Has it not occurred to anyone that the reason they got themselves in this mess is that they didn't fancy the inevitable flak (and more) that would have come their way from both the media and, more importantly, the knuckledragging element of Celtic's support

I don't quite grasp the point you're trying to make. If the ref had explained why the decision he took was the correct one then surely there couldn't have been any comeback? But he lied, therefore leaving himself open to criticism.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Can you imagine what the stushie would've been like if Celtic hadn't won that game and if TV replays had showed it was a penalty?

[Ember]

I don't quite grasp the point you're trying to make. If the ref had explained why the decision he took was the correct one then surely there couldn't have been any comeback? But he lied, therefore leaving himself open to criticism.

Seriously, you don't get the idea that an element of Rantics fans don't care if it was the right decision? Do you believe that officials never get abuse for correct decisions?

 

You only have to look around the Jackie Husband to see people ready to explode with righteous indignation over decisions that you or I know were correct. Apply this reaction to the more 'excitable' Rantic fans in our society and it's easy to see why officials feel pressured into giving them what the media would refer to as the benefit of the doubt. It's probably not even a conscious decision anymore and more likely a result of conditioning over the years.

 

Now, I'm not saying I'm happy about this, but I just believe that this is the root cause of all of this nonsense. Now, if only McDonald had a pair what would we all have been talking about for the past few weeks...

[wes]

I really don't get all the bigotry discussion on here - some are dealing with it on a far too simplistic level.

 

Firstly I would like to say that I would be equally unhappy with any political or religious organisation sticking their noses into the national game here (or anywhere).

 

I was unhappy at the intrusion of the RC church in the internal dealings of a football organisation. In going public with their comments they were trying to make sure that they got the usual knee-jerk media reaction - which worked - but surely you (and the others) can see that the church's media office should have had a discussion and kept their counsel on this one. Giving the biblical analogy of the adulterous woman, the media reported the incident and brought the RC church to the stoning ground where they happily cast the first stone.

 

They decided against letting the SFA get on with their disciplinary procedure and went public with their ridiculous indignation at what was both an ill-advised (as I have already said) but satirically funny email on a topic - very loosely - related to them.

 

The tone of their communication was equally ill-advised and worded such that they did not list all of the good things related to Scottish football and the good it does in the community in giving children and recovering addicts the chance to get regular sport and the benefits that brings - or teams that unite a community.

 

No they decided to hone in on retribution and justice and focus on the negative so please forgive me if I failed to mention any positives relating to the RC church but when they decided to meddle with an external organisation (as decrepit as the SFA is) and demand they get their house in order then they are simply open season as their house is an absolute shambles and the church's negatives therefore merit being mentioned.

 

Please feel free however to call me a bigot or a factual bigot if it you like - I'll turn the other cheek.

 

As they say, bigot or factual bigot is your choice - 2 cheeks of the same *rse!

[gianlucatoni]

As they say, bigot or factual bigot is your choice - 2 cheeks of the same *rse!

 

Should that not read 'their'? - but resorting to peurile personal attacks is a sign you've lost the argument.

[GrantB]

Spectacularly missing the point, as per.

 

And odious, pompous and patronising as usual Sparky. I'm not usually one to do personal insults but I'll make an exception for you.