How Do You Think The Club Should Deal With Leigh Griffiths?

Cheers, North.

 

As far as I'm aware random review was referring to yourself! :smiley-laughing002:

But that's exactly the question I initially asked you! After all, you're the one who has inferred 'you know your history'.

To answer your other question, I wouldn't really make a distinction between a first generation refugee and their son, particularly when you consider the context of the environment at the time, and the fact that the men we are referring to were prominent leaders and figures in a refugee community. However, clearly others make a distinction, and that's fine.

But in the hope of eventually getting an answer from yourself, I'll ask my question again: would you agree with the statement that some of Celtic's founding fathers were refugees and sons of refugees?

When did I call Scottish people refugees? You said that suggesting Celtic were formed by refugees was 'bigoted'. I'd imagine it would be quite clear if you looked back at the posts.

 

And yes I agree with that, when did I deny it? I just know everyone of them on your list wasn't a refugee. And you didn't say sons of refugees though, you clearly said they were all refugees. You called some of the Scottish born founders of Celtic refugees, I know Glass and Mclaughlin were born in Scotland. If you think because past generations of their family will give them the label of refugee for the rest of their life. That's your opinion, mate. I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

Well considering 'made in Ireland' has turned the thread into a discussion about whether or not the sons of a refugee should be classed as one or not, I think it safe to say changing the should to will is going to be accepted you pedantic *!:icon_mrgreen:

 

He didn't, though. He made an interesting and thoughtful point about the origins of our club and their relevance to the song Leigh Griffiths allegedly sang, which anyone who wanted to could understand without difficulty. He has then been forced to defend this point against members such as yourself pedantically pointing out that it's not 100% true that we were founded by or for refugees. The connection between refugees from the great famine, subsequent social and economic devastation and doubtless other havoc wrought by the British occupation and the formation of our club is so obvious that only someone whose agenda it didn't suit would choose not to see this but instead split hairs about Brother Walfrid not being a literal refugee or the percentage of people that were fleeing famine, political oppression, etc and the percentage of economic migrants seeking better opportunities.

I have no problem with you discussing what you think "will" happen in this thread if you want to. It just confused me for a while as I didn't understand what point you were trying to make (relevant to the thread title). It seemed like you were arguing that we shouldn't condemn Griffiths' actions because the video evidence wouldn't stand up in court (a deliciously non-sequitertastic argument). Now that I know you were actually starting another, separate discussion about what will happen, the confusion is sorted.

 

I meant you were being pedantic, mate. Saying that I should create another thread changing the should to will in the thread title. I am sure you were being sarcastic but so was I. Right I've got more to respond to say on this subject but going to bed so will have to be tomorrow. Glad confusion is over though about the what the discussion has moved on to.

 

Post it now mate, i'll not sleep, waiting in anticipation* to see what it is.

*is that spelt right?

 

100% right Tim Malloy Bhhoy , a load of balls blown out of proportion .
Who is blowing this out of proportion , mostly Celtic 's finest and best internet posters who rarely attend Celtic games but sit on their arses and tell everyone
How the players and the fans should behave .

 

Mac Ewan There is no clear video evidence that Leigh Griffiths sang the whole thing that Rudi Scakel was a * racist . If some idiot sacked Griffiths , he could sue that individual or his employer for a considerable sum of money . Legally you cannot find someone guilty for what you think you may have heard ,
or what you would have liked to have heard . The law doesn't work like that

 

Big companies have procedures for dealing with that, though.

 

Last Saturday I watched the 'well game with a man from Poland . We briefly talked about L Griffiths and he said he was a marvellous signing , best scorer in Scotland last season with a poor Hibs season . When the game was over I asked him did he think it was fair what was been said about Griffiths . He said it was a nothing story blown out of all proportions and mostly by our own fans ,. Crazy he said ,mad .

 

This thread still going?

Bored of it

Zzz

 

Eh Rudi Skacel is a racist,do you even read parts of your own posts ,it looks as if it's been written by a 5 year old

 

Me too.

 

When did you hear that one?

You could "legally" be up for slander there

 

Stop frantically trying to defend Griffiths. There will be more videos out there, the police will get a hold of one if the current one isn't enough. Out of curiosity, you can clearly hear Griffiths sing "Rudi Skacel..." Before the Hibs fans join in. How do you think his song finished if he didn't sing what the rest of them were singing?

Is this particular Polish man an all knowing bearer of wisdom? Why is his opinion so important to you? Why is he even begin brought up?

This is my last post on the matter, because like Koke, I'm bored.

 

ulsterscot your argumentation is hopeless

 

Oh I would imagine because the aforementioned Polish man will have had no problems if he had been on the receiving end of the "signing/banter" that this song represents. Which is slightly different from the Polish people I have the privilege to know (my mate is a builder and we have a few Polish Joiners etc) and I can tell you, if griffiths or anyone else was to sing that song, in front of them, I would enjoy seeing him/them get what he/they would deserve, a right good smack. (I am not condoning violence.:icon_mrgreen: however sometimes when dealing with the lowest common denominator, it's all they understand).

 

You are really struggling to understand the concept of law, aren't you? It doesn't matter what we think, or what common sense points to. It's the fact the video cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A judge won't prosecute someone based on his gut feeling.

Hold of another video? The defence use videos more than the prosecution do, because what a video does is show that it cannot be proven beyond doubt even if there are witnesses involved. Do you not understand the shockingly low prosecution rate regarding video evidence in the courts? Especially for this type of case. To even say case is ridiculous.

Do you actually think the police can build a case here? You have some cheek to scrutinise my posts when you make ridiculous comments like the one above. I advise you to keep on this thread, I know you are bored because you are having difficulties understanding certain aspects, just don't want you making a fool of yourself in real life if you spout that kind of nonsense like you did above!