Frankie

Thanks for that Gav- always interesting to get an issue from a learned perspective. I don't think anyone is under-estimating just how difficult it is for the police and stewards at football games - even low category ones like last night. As said earlier, I sympathise with them as, no matter how much we think we're all angels, there are plenty of idiots who attend matches. However, last night was the perfect example of the issues you highlight. Ergo, during a climate where governments and politicised police forces (and their unions/federations) are seeking to criminalise fans for offensive behaviour, it is vital they ensure their actions are balanced and sensible. This wasn't the case last night so it worries me greatly ahead of further changes to the way such matches are policed.

There were anti-Salmond songs. Not as loud or as widespread but there were plenty people chanting against him.

To be honest, I initially sympathised with the police to a degree last night. The whole situation appeared to be catalysed by the fat steward who was intent in pulling at least one fan out for behaviour as yet unknown. Certainly no offensive songs were song (unless you deem Fuck the SNP as unacceptable). Clearly, because of the number of fans in our section; the police had to make their presence felt to assist the steward. At that point many of the fans got upset because there appeared to no reason for the lad to be ejected. I honestly feel at this point, the police should have retreated and allowed the situation to settle down but once again this steward insisted upon entering the middle of the lower section to grab another fan. By this point the atmosphere was getting quite hostile and the police were clearly losing control of a nothing incident. Best thing to happen was the lower few rows walking out in protest. This allowed them to make their point and helped settle the situation down. Not enough for the same steward who kept moaning loudly and longly at the back of the section to a colleague. I intend writing to the club to object to this questionable stewarding. Clearly, I don't know the full story but as a 'reasonable person', I found the stewarding heavy-handed and inappropriate. I also found the subsequent policing unnecessarily intimidating and poorly organised.

Please take to pm Ian...

The clubs probably won't have much choice if the increasingly politicised Strathclyde Police continue to force through their 'footprint' costs for local clubs. In some ways, the alcohol point may be true for some midweek Old Firm games but for others (such as the one on the 28th December); I'd fancy a lot of people will take the next day off so would be just as drunk as if the game was on the Sunday.

IIRC, Broadfoot said yesterday anyone can 'report' such incidents. What isn't clear is who decides what gets referred to their Compliance Officer - allegedly an Edinburgh lawyer called Will Cole.

I contacted Regan and the SFA twitter account asking about the Hooper incident at the time. They didn't reply.

I've defended McCulloch against the more vehement criticism he receives but on his showings this season, the guy looks finished. I appreciate he's been coming back from injury (or pre-season rustiness) in most of his games so that may account for a lack of sharpness but in almost every game his lack of pace and mobility have been exposed - particularly later in matches. He and Papac were both culpable last night - McCulloch for being unable to cope with quick counters and Papac refusing to work hard to get back into position meaning Wylde had to not only supply the attack but cover defensively for the Bosnian also. I hope both are dropped for Saturday.

The G denotes 'GAOTU'... * * Not a wrestler.

It's clearly a square and compass.

OK: Users will now be sent an email when they receive a pm (unless they opt to switch this off after registering). Have also installed a mod which flashes up a notice on the forum homepage when they get such messages.

What was that again mate?

All functionality restored: - Lower breadcrumbs navigation - Post thanks/groans - Visitor stats - Limited guest viewing - Auto tagger - Sub-forum manager - Separate sticky and normal threads - Extended tab bar - Welcome headers Admin reserve the right to disable any of these should forum performance be degraded.

You can't beat a bit of ska...

The police spokesman added that it is unclear at this stage how many people were arrested as a result of the callouts. Hmmm.

Boooo! £2 a pint here so some Hoegaarden, Stella Black and Youtube should make for a nice combination. Have it!

I'd politely request people remain civil.

It happens every time because upgrades mean coding changes. As soon as we get a chance we will reinstall them for your convenience. Unfortunately Barry and I are very busy with other commitments so it's taking a wee bit longer than usual this time. Apologies.

Draught beer/lager tap.

I'd definitely agree the Trust needs a fresh start to restore interest and belief into the organisation. Fan ownership will and should remain their raison d'être but it's clear that is not possible as it stands. It's a shame the Team 2 thing has stalled as that seems a good way of finding ways of regaining any credibility they did have.

The Trust currently don't give a free share to new members now unfortunately. Generally speaking a tenner isn't a huge amount but perhaps they should remove that fee (or even halve it) to increase numbers. TB: I agree it probably isn't accurate to compare the Working Group with either of the 'proper' fans groups but I do think it is a better example of how our fans should be working together to achieve results.

I'm not so sure that's true. I thought MD was on the board from the start?

What are/were the Team 2 meetings? The current Trust board only has 16 people (with at least one on a sabbatical) so it's a shame they can't get it filled. Given the current situation with the club, the fans really need a strong Trust/Assembly but I guess the Working Group is the current driving force for the support.

I don't see why bears can't respect each other's views when it comes to representation. Sure, by all means disagree, but let's do so in a way that we can retain a bit of objectivity.

Steady on. I think most of us have at some time been members of the Trust - or indeed did a lot of hard work on the board. Unfortunately, there will be even more who haven't been a member or perhaps disagree with some of the Trust's work over the years. I don't think it's fair to suggest that just because people may oppose the RST, they're a 'ranting mass' which should be ignored. FWIW, although I've had my own differences with the RST in the (now thankfully distant) past, I've never held back from saying the support need a strong Trust (and Assembly) - while also being critical where appropriate. To that end, myself and this site have retained a constructive relationship with the various supporters groups and club officials. I think everyone understands occasional disagreement is healthy - more so if it's kept constructive which I know the people on this site largely strive to do. That's why the new working group has been pretty successful over the last few months and, as BD says, it has gone some way to repairing some relationships which had broken down over recent times.