Guest Dutchy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I heard McBride on the radio this morning saying, basically, 'bring it on'. And I thought the war with the SFA was over. Oh yeah, McBride doesn't represent septic. Or so he says lol. If anyone is bringing religion into football it's their camp and the current moaning is actually based of the whole of scottish culture beig anti-Irish Catholic. It seems if you come out with inflamatory and inaccurate statements for long enough, it becomes true!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yieldshields loyal 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Its for all to see he's goading the SFA into court. Called them "neanderthals" in another radio interview yesterday. The worrying thing is, does he have a case - if so, what is the final goal? To embarress the SFA? All in, would love to see this backfire on the whole filthy hovel of tarriers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 He claimed this morning that he had a right as a member of the public to cast his opinion about the SFA citing Clarks comments as justification that anyone can express their opinion, so I'd assume that's what he's using as a defence. Of course, not being a lawyer myself, I'm not sure about such a high profile character such as McBride can't be done for slander, or liable??? As he's been involved with a case involving the SFA, you would think that going to the Bar Society, or whatever the the name of the organisation the SFA intend to complain about his self-publicist motives may have something to say. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Surely "Neanderthals" is libellous and pretty hard to defend in court? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Right. This is my own opinion obviously. I think the "outrage" at this lawyer is OTT. What's the difference between him talking about his team than someone from the RST? I am aware of the rhetoric he's spouting is slanderous, but why not let him rant on damaging himself, the vermin and everything around them. lets be honest, the SFA are a mess so maybe be this rant will benefit us al and lead to an over haul of the SFA? For the record i hate the guy and hope he catches chronic crabs, but calm down people, we accuse them of being obsessive about us. The stuff i'm saying on various online Rangers outlets is bordering on obsessive too. **Puts hardhat and high vis on 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 He's not an official representative so why is he been given the platform to discuss matters that have nothing to do with him? I'd see the point if it were Celtic players being disciplined but this was a Rangers issue and nothing to do with Celtic nor any of their high profile fans. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'm just amazed to see any lawyer behave in this manner - they are supposed to represent clients and have no opinion on the cases they take on. Isn't that their raison d'etre? This guy is coming out and slandering the SFA and to a lesser extent Rangers. I'm almost curious as to what tim fans think of his comments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 Dougie Vipond asked him "Celtic have said in the past couple of weeks that there's no war with the SFA. Have things changed now?" McBride answered "No, there is no war with the SFA. There never was a war with the SFA". So to borrow a phrase from the Queen's Counsel, 'any sensible person' would have to draw the conclusion that he is speaking on behalf of Celtc FC, no? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Right. This is my own opinion obviously. I think the "outrage" at this lawyer is OTT. What's the difference between him talking about his team than someone from the RST? The RST are not being paid by Rangers to represent them. The RST are no a client of Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 This will run and run as the SFA are backed up against a wall over the general accusations that all of Scottish culture, and obviously it's institutions are anti catholic. Irish catholics to be precise. Everyone and anyone will come out with their tu'pence worth, but none of it will rid our society from bigotry, in fact, all this high profile whinning is likely to excarebate it. It seems to me the only way to get fairness for the tims is for them to get all the decisions they want, then that should be the end of it. Aye, right!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.