Club Statement 24 November 2021 - Page 4 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Club Statement 24 November 2021


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

And you talk about the club nor 'disclosing a spent conviction', when that is already in the public domain and the only thing that has guaranteed non-stop discussion of it is the club's disastrous wagon-circling exercise. 

No right to full rehabilitation or individual privacy has been achieved in practice then, but at least the lawyers are happy that their useless work is done. 

As I said above, the fact it is in the public domain doesn't by itself undo his right to privacy.

A legal right to rehabilitation has in fact been achieved and the right to privacy does in fact (in this universe/the real world) include spent convictions. This is the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Yes, the principle of rehabilitation is really being served here by the club and a bunch of lawyers turning it into a white-hot discussion and abuse point within the fanbase. Nobody is discussing that private spent conviction now - trebles all round for the crack legal team behind this strategy! 

It's not the club and lawyers who make the laws though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cmdc said:

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, the right to privacy etc aren't works of literary fiction. They are actual laws that create actual rights and obligations here in the real world. And they begin not with the club and not with fans' concerns but with the principle that the individual is rehabilitated, has the right to be treated as though no offence has been committed, and has a reasonable expectation of privacy that extends to spent convictions.  And they would be pretty flimsy rights if a small number of people in a football club fan base can undermine them (not all unreasonably - though some of it clearly is) by talking about it on terraces or on a forum. 

Those rights are clearly as flimsy as a Ukrainian-made deckchair, as that's exactly what's happening here and has only been exacerbated by your lawyer set humming and hawing about a responsibility to keep schtum.

It is serving absolutely nobody well in this situation, including the individual, but if the club and its advisors want to continue going down this pointless cul-de-sac then they really can't come back crying about the consequences. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professor Dork has made quite a case for the pervert's rights, however there has been no mention of the victims here.  What about their rights?  Also, what about the rights of female Morton supporters or the rights of female Morton employees?  Do they not matter?

Should we just disregard their thoughts and feelings on this matter because some nasty wee Corsa driving pervert is able to kick a ball?

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Those rights are clearly as flimsy as a Ukrainian-made deckchair, as that's exactly what's happening here and has only been exacerbated by your lawyer set humming and hawing about a responsibility to keep schtum.

It is serving absolutely nobody well in this situation, including the individual, but if the club and its advisors want to continue going down this pointless cul-de-sac then they really can't come back crying about the consequences. 

No idea who the club's advisers are or if they have taken legal advice. But really it is up to the individual to determine what is in his best interests, not you, me or the club. That's his right and it is protected by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly never thought I would say this - but right now Morton are morally bankrupt.  I would much sooner that we owed the Rae Family £2million or whatever it was rather than be in this situation.

Fan ownership is not a bad idea, but our particular version sucks big time.  From what i've gathered, there are certain individuals out to sabotage the project from within.  Perhaps with a view to creating a path for certain local businessmen coming in as our white knights.  I think that the signing of a player who has a questionable background (to say the least) may be part of a bigger picture.

 

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, capitanus said:

Professor Dork has made quite a case for the pervert's rights, however there has been no mention of the victims here.  What about their rights?  Also, what about the rights of female Morton supporters or the rights of female Morton employees?  Do they not matter?

Should we just disregard their thoughts and feelings on this matter because some nasty wee Corsa driving pervert is able to kick a ball?

I'm not sure how the rights of the victims are relevant here - he was convicted, punished, and the conviction is now spent.

Once again, he is a rehabilitated person in the eyes of the law. You don't have to like the fact, but it is illegal for the club to treat him any differently because of a spent conviction. That's not 'my case for his rights' - that's what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and various cases on the right to privacy tells us (and tells the club as his employer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cmdc said:

I'm not sure how the rights of the victims are relevant here - he was convicted, punished, and the conviction is now spent.

Once again, he is a rehabilitated person in the eyes of the law. You don't have to like the fact, but it is illegal for the club to treat him any differently because of a spent conviction. That's not 'my case for his rights' - that's what the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and various cases on the right to privacy tells us (and tells the club as his employer).

We could have adopted the old Rangers approach whenever they discovered a signing target was of a certain religion - simply by saying 'We already have a player for that position'.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, capitanus said:

We could have adopted the old Rangers approach whenever they discovered a signing target was of a certain religion - simply by saying 'We already have a player for that position'.

And if you adopt that approach because he has a spent conviction then it is illegal. Just because you lie about your illegal act doesn't make it legal (or moral or ethical). I don't see the consistency in saying with one hand that the club is morally bankrupt and with the other that the club should lie to evade the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cmdc said:

And if you adopt that approach because he has a spent conviction then it is illegal. Just because you lie about your illegal act doesn't make it legal (or moral or ethical).

Aye, and if he takes us to a tribunal then let him.  I'd much sooner that than have a pervert at our club.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, capitanus said:

Aye, and if he takes us to a tribunal then let him.  I'd much sooner that than have a pervert at our club.

In which case your issue is really with the law/policy on rehabilitation rather than with fan ownership or the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Our fans think you’re an arsehole and this is gonnae cause problems if we sign you, we really need to address this otherwise this there’s going to be a bad situation that’s shite for everyone, and we can’t really justify that when we’re already gambling on you being able to run in 18 months.”

 

This situation was always going to happen, the option to sign a big mess of a player was always optional too. Nobody forced the club to take the punt on this character, and the potential reward from his performances was nowhere near high enough to be worth the hassle.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cmdc said:

In which case your issue is really with the law/policy on rehabilitation rather than with fan ownership or the club.

My problem is that the club have signed a convicted sex offender that I dont want to see at Morton.  Whether or not in the eyes of the law that he is allowed to carry on regardless as though nothing happened is irrelevant, he will always be a pervert regardless of how many weasel words are argued in his favour. 

 

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EanieMeany said:

“Our fans think you’re an arsehole and this is gonnae cause problems if we sign you, we really need to address this otherwise this there’s going to be a bad situation that’s shite for everyone, and we can’t really justify that when we’re already gambling on you being able to run in 18 months.”

 

This situation was always going to happen, the option to sign a big mess of a player was always optional too. Nobody forced the club to take the punt on this character, and the potential reward from his performances was nowhere near high enough to be worth the hassle.

The bit in bold is the only relevant part to the signing. The club can't take his spent conviction into account or treat him differently on the basis of his spent conviction (such as strongly suggesting/requiring him to make/allow a statement on his behalf). There's a bit of a Conservative/Daily Mail approach to justice here that legal rights and rehabilitation should give way in the face of public pressure - but that's the whole point of this law in the first place: so that a spent conviction doesn't follow a rehabilitated person for the rest of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about Lithgow's contribution on the park than events which happened years ago which he was rightly punished for. His signing looks to be another MacPherson masterstroke based on desperation to get a body in after a poor summer recruitment exercise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TaunTon said:

I'm more concerned about Lithgow's contribution on the park than events which happened years ago which he was rightly punished for. His signing looks to be another MacPherson masterstroke based on desperation to get a body in after a poor summer recruitment exercise. 

I'd agree with that, for a professional athlete he looks overweight and unfit to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TaunTon said:

I'm more concerned about Lithgow's contribution on the park than events which happened years ago which he was rightly punished for. His signing looks to be another MacPherson masterstroke based on desperation to get a body in after a poor summer recruitment exercise. 

He was signed on June 4th so that's not the case at all. Rightly or not, he was clearly one of McPherson's top targets. 

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

He was signed on June 4th so that's not the case at all. Rightly or not, he was clearly one of McPherson's top targets. 

Sums up his lack of insight, knowledge and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cmdc said:

And if you adopt that approach because he has a spent conviction then it is illegal. Just because you lie about your illegal act doesn't make it legal (or moral or ethical). I don't see the consistency in saying with one hand that the club is morally bankrupt and with the other that the club should lie to evade the law.

I suppose that you reckon that the club have never passed on signing someone for non footballing reasons?  How many times did Morton pass upon the chance of Rowan Alexander as manager, despite being the best available candidate, for example?

For what its worth, the club was under no obligation to sign the player concerned, they done so through choice.  I am not looking for written statements or any gesture aimed at 'drawing a line under it' as has been suggested by some earlier on the thread - I want him out of the club altogether.  If there are any individuals singling out this player for a hard time then they have my full support on the matter.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capitanus said:

I suppose that you reckon that the club have never passed on signing someone for non footballing reasons?  How many times did Morton pass upon the chance of Rowan Alexander as manager, despite being the best available candidate, for example?

For what its worth, the club was under no obligation to sign the player concerned, they done so through choice.  I am not looking for written statements or any gesture aimed at 'drawing a line under it' as has been suggested by some earlier on the thread - I want him out of the club altogether.  If there are any individuals singling out this player for a hard time then they have my full support on the matter.

No idea, and it isn't relevant. We did sign Lithgow and so as a potential employer his conviction was irrelevant to Morton and as an employee his conviction is irrelevant to his treatment by the club. There is no duty on fans to agree with the signing or to treat him in any particular way (albeit some of what has been said about him is borderline actionable), but there absolutely is such a duty on Morton as his employer.

Which is your right - but (thankfully) you can't lawfully achieve that and my personal view is it is inconsistent to talk about moral bankruptcy and also to single someone out for a hard time who is rehabilitated.                      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...