Following on from discussion here...

Quote Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks View Post
I'm afraid you will never convince me that Richie Foran's reaction to being followed, smacked several times and trying in vain to prevent a physical altercation was in any way inappropriate; likewise Gary Deegan's. FFS Deegan was the person assaulted, unless the cobbles or tarmac are the victim. Call the police if you have a problem with someone urinating in public. Don't start a fight and break someone's jaw. I didn't bring up juries, you did. I hope you are never assaulted because, if you were, you might find out that justice is not always proportionate. Plenty of people get away with assaults and much worse than that. And yes it does - since you bring it up - have a little bit to do with nationality. There are how many Irish footballers in Scotland and how many of them have been in physical altercations, beatings or threats. Compare it to Wales or England; then completely simplify what I am saying and tell me I am painting all of them with the same brush.
I'm not trying to convince you of that at all as I've not even said his reaction was inappropriate. In fact, I personally acknowledged it seemed a bit sh*tty for Foran to be punished from what we've read of the incident. I'm just re-iterating what the courts found, however, and they had the benefit of the evidence in front of them, unlike yourself and myself. Take your dispute up with the Scottish courts if you so strongly disagree with their verdict.

In Deeganís case, he was adjudged to have threatened Hall, who was deemed to have acted in justifiable self-defence in response to Deeganís threat (even if Hallís scolding was what stirred Deegan into his threatening conduct in the first place). Itís pretty simple really and I donít know how you think youíre in a better position to offer a verdict than the judge or jury in each respective case seemingly just because you have an affinity to both players through shared nationality. Your odd stance is akin to stubbornly blind patriotism.

I say the above in spite of knowing exactly how it feels; all seven stitches and four staples of it. Iíve been an innocent victim myself - the unknown assailant even got away scot-free due to an inability to identify him in my case - but my experience and sense of incomplete justice has no bearing whatsoever on my feelings on the above cases. Why should it?

Nobody is saying there isnít a sectarianism/anti-Irish problem in Scotland. There clearly is and weíre all well aware of that. But are you saying that the Scottish authorities are turning a blind eye to it, or worse, that it permeates even their execution of justice? Is that your point?

Anthony Stokes went to the funeral of a friend - who happened to be an IRA member. His father put up a banner saying the Queen isn't welcome at his pub. How does that make them IRA sympathisers? You only read the rags when it suits your argument?
Stokes has been a regular attendee of explicitly republican public events in the past, or he was at least before Neil Lennon warned him about potentially damaging his clubís reputation by engaging in pro-militant sing-songs and chanting. Firearms and ammunition were once seized during a Garda raid of the Players Lounge specifically targeting "dissident" republican activity. Stokes' father has also been arrested on more than on occasion for suspected involvement in such activity. The message on the banner prior to the queen's visit was in line with the official 32CSM word on the matter. I'm not necessarily having a go or anything Ė that's the Stokes family's business Ė but one can put two and two together and see a bit of a pattern there...

I'll say it again. Apologising because you were scared of getting in legal trouble is not remorse, after trying to erase his cyber footsteps no less. And I'll say this again. You can not threaten to stab and blow people up in the environment of the year 2014 with things like 9/11, 7/7, the Rigby murder and ISIS raw in the public conscience. YES. He mightn't have been serious. Nobody is calling for a life sentence. He still needs to be punished for the same reason cowards who racially abuse footballers from behind a computer need to be punished and made an example of.
Remorse can't comprise of regret over the potential detrimental repercussions of one's action to oneself? What is remorse then? Need it be completely selfless. Of course, you're a righteous purist and expect the highest of moral standards from everyone. He apologised and Stokes was satisfied, as were the authorities. Why do you want a say in the matter, as if you're some moral arbiter who can judge whether or not the guy is sorry enough for his idiocy? What does the over-riding terror-paranoid political climate of the day have to do with this incident? You judge each case on its merits; not based on some populist fear and anxiety. What sort of punishment would you be calling for and what purpose would it serve given that all parties are now satisfied proper order has been restored? The law exists to maintain social order and its application is (supposed to be) universal and equal. It does not, or should not, exist to needlessly make examples of particular individuals that the authorities arbitrarily deem worthy of some extra punishment.

Political protest have no place in football. Nor does sectarian and racist chanting. You wouldn't get it in far worse off countries let alone Northern Europe. It is an embarrassment.
Politics and football are intertwined all across the globe. To be honest, it's naive, passive and docile to think otherwise, or to want to think otherwise even. Theyíre inseparable, from the money-loaded FIFA right down the the grassroots of the game. Sadly, racism is also a popular ingredient, even in Europe, but it need not be a necessary one just because football supporters might be politically engaged. Do you think individuals and communities engaged in football are not political beings or entities with thoughts about their lives and the affairs that directly affect them? The gathering of a football crowd is so often the only collective voice a community has on a week-to-week basis. It's inevitable that their identity and politics would colour their support. I don't know how you could say a political protest, such as the one below especially, has no place at a football game when the supporters concerned find themselves being criminalised for doing simply what football supporters do:

Why is it important knowing who specifically made the relevant death threats or who posted them? It's beside the point. They were made.
Itís not beside the point. Itís crucial to ascertaining if theyíre genuine or not. They could have been made by clowns messing around or the alleged threats could be akin to black flag operations.

Foran & Doran's assault was sectarian. O'Dea's was sectarian. Lennon's was sectarian. The threats against McGinn, McCourt and Lennon were sectarian. There are several more who have been victims of sectarian chanting. When Mario Balotelli is subjected to monkey chants it's inexcusable. Why is it excusable for Irish footballers to be abused because of their religion or nationality?
Whoís excusing the sectarian abuse of Irish footballers? Certainly not me.

On a final note. There is no need to be so insulting or condescending. I don't resort to that. You're one of the best posters here. I expect better of you.
Sometimes, you might catch me when Iím tired or more irritable, but, honestly, donít take everything I say in argument to heart. I respond to you in detail because thereís a mutual respect there. Don't be so precious.