19 Mar 2014 16:02:15
Leigh Griffiths can chalk up another court appearance to his list of convictions - is there no standards at the club any longer?
Wrong Ed, he wasn't convicted today so he can't add it to that particular list.
Hail Hail
{Ed007's Note - Do you struggle with reading or comprehension? Try reading what I actually wrote again but this time do it slowly.}
Ed my reading and comprehension skills are exemplary. You, on this occasion, could learn from them.
Let me explain: A court appearance is not a conviction so his mere attendance at court doesn't mean he can add it to a list of previous matters that have been proven.
Hail Hail
{Ed007's Note - Try reading it again, where did I say he was convicted today? I said he can add another court appearance to his list of conviction, I missed the part where I should have said his long list of convictions. It will still be on his ned-like record that he appeared at court today. You're not having a very good day on here are you?}
19 Mar 2014 17:35:46
You not a fan ed?
I don't know what this one was for but if he plays well for us then I'm willing to look past it and back the player like a supporter should.
{Ed007's Note - It's for assault, will you back him if he gets locked up?}
Ed I'm having a blast as always.
He can't add a court appearance to a list of convictions. A conviction is an offence, a court appearance isn't. That's like saying a player got a game even though he was only named in the squad.
If you meant it to read a different way then at least have the cahunas to admit that you worded it differently to how you intended it to read.
And by the way, I'll back the lad too. Lord knows he needs someone to give him some footballing encouragement because it sure as hell ain't coming from you sir!
Hail Hail
{Ed007's Note - So your criminal record doesn't include ALL charges you have been charged with whether you are found guilty or not? Try telling the USA that for me, I was refused a visa a couple of years ago and EVERYTHING I had been charged with was disclosed, even some charges that had been dropped by the PF. No matter the outcome of the trial the charge will still show up on Griffiths abysmal and long CRIMINAL record.}
Why oh why Chrisbhoy I mean your posts leave a lot to be desired at the best of times but believe me you need to be a brave man to try an outwit our ED007. Never mind once again ED you bring a laugh and a smile to my day.
The Happy Turnkey
19 Mar 2014 18:51:40
If he gets locked up its unlikely he'll play for us
Ed a charge without a conviction does not create a criminal record. Check it out and you'll see for yourself. I can't speak about your own misdemeanours, maybe you and Mr. Griffiths have something in common after all?
Hail Hail
{Ed007's Note - As I said earlier Chris, you are not having the best of days on here are you?
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-567725
You might not actually have noticed Chris, but I am never wrong, I thought I was once but it turned out I was mistaken. Believe me, it used to be a burden but over the years I have just had to get used to it, I realised it's not really my fault others don't, won't or can't measure up to my own extraordinarily high standards.
Some have tried, teachers etc, but most have failed miserably or just plain gave up through their own weaknesses, one of modern society's weaknesses is that people will say or do anything just to fit in rather than say what is the right thing to say or do for fear of seclusion. An attitude of positive expectation is the mark of the superior personality.
Oh and I have more class in the fluff between my toes than Leigh Griffiths will ever have in his life, deadbeat dads are the lowest of the low.}
Ed you are often wrong. Your claim of having more class in the fluff between your toes than Griffiths is nothing more than your opinion. If you had any class you'd leave the guy alone. And perhaps you'll begin to post all messages, not just the ones that suit your agenda.
{Ed007's Note - Did I hit a nerve there Chris? Don't take it to heart, better men than you have tried, and failed, to prove me wrong. Every post from you has been posted today,some towards DN30 have been edited (you should have been banned for some of your statements towards him).
Thankfully I don't know you in real life but I can just tell by your bollox talk that you have a face I'd never get tired of slapping if I did!
That's a prime example of your mentality. Moaning about posts is the last gasp saloon of a desperate man, and you have looked more and more desperate all day! I take it you still aren't going to admit you are wrong then?
As for Griffiths I can assure you what I said is a fact, I am, and always have been, a far better man than any deadbeat dad.
What were you saying about no record of charges that are dropped or the person was found not guilty of again? Oh wait, Chris was wrong....AGAIN!
I don't have any agenda, all the differing opinions on here back that up, see I can back up what I say, you should maybe try it some day. Facts are stubborn things - whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
A superior man in dealing with the world is not for anything or against anything, he follows righteousness as the standard.
Don't hate me for being that superior man, hate yourself for proving it.}
The fact remains that a court appearance does not belong on a list of convictions so I guess you are wrong this time Ed because they are separate events.
{Ed007's Note - Nobody can be this thick! Did you dog school the day the covered reading? Did you even read the link I posted? Incase you didn't here are some excerpts from it:
Since 2006, for the first time in British history, all police records of arrest have been kept indefinitely on the PNC unless an individual can demonstrate an 'exceptional case' for removal of their records. Anyone who is arrested for any recordable offence has a record created on the Police National Computer (PNC). Current policy is to retain all these records to age 100.
Police records can be used to refuse someone a visa or a job simply because they have a record of arrest and can lead to stigma and discrimination when accessed by officers on the beat.
Information about arrests can be released as part of a criminal record check, even if there has been no charge, caution or conviction.
People who were arrested as children under the previous government will be the most affected because of the large numbers of arrests for alleged minor offences (such as pulling hair and throwing snowballs) due to police targets.
In the past, PNC records used to be deleted after 42 days if a person was not convicted. People with cautions had their records deleted after 5 years, and those with single convictions for minor offences after ten. People with multiple convictions or convictions for serious offences could have their records kept for life. There were some exceptions e.g. records from people arrested but not convicted of sexual offences could be kept for five years with the authorisation of a superintendent. (See the old ACPO weeding rules).
By 2006, these guidelines had been abandoned in favour of retention of all PNC records, from everyone arrested for any recordable offence, to age 100. The change was made as a matter of Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) policy and never debated by parliament. The justification provided at the time was that the police needed to retain PNC records to see whether or not they had already taken a DNA sample from an arrested individual, and to help them track an individual down in the event of a DNA match. This justification no longer applies if new legislation requires a person's record on the DNA database to be deleted.
The PNC was set up in 1995, and some records of cautions may have been removed between 2000 and 2005, but no records of convictions were removed before the policy was changed.
This affects both innocent people and people convicted of a minor offence, including children.
In summer 2008, the Information Tribunal ruled that keeping records of past, spent convictions or cautions for minor offences is incompatible with the Data Protection Act and that such people should have their police records deleted. However, in 2009, the police won an appeal against this decision.
This case did not consider people who had not been convicted or cautioned for any offence, who can also be refused jobs purely on the basis of a record of arrest.
In May 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the police procedure for retention of PNC records, DNA and fingerprints was unlawful and gave the Government a "reasonable time" to adopt new legislation in the Protection of Freedoms Act which will now come into force in October 2013. However, the Act does not explicitly include a requirement to delete PNC or PND records from innocent people (only their DNA and fingerprint records).
In November 2012, the European Court of Human rights issued a judgment about the indefinite retention of Police National Computer (PNC) records from a person with a caution.The Court decided the UK Government has breached the European Convention on Human Rights because there are currently no specific rules on when PNC records should be deleted and how they can be used.
Ian Huntley had been arrested multiple times for other offences before he committed the Soham murders. The Police National Database (PND) has been created to share police information between different forces in response to the findings of the Bichard Inquiry which followed the murders. However, Bichard did not recommend keeping all records of arrest until age 100: this risks swamping the system with irrelevant information as well as eroding the rights of millions of innocent people. More detail about the Huntley case and why PNC and PND records should be deleted at the same time as DNA and fingerprint records is in GeneWatch's submission to the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee (paragraphs 23 to 29).
Every arrest is logged on your criminal record, no matter the outcome of the case. That is fact, no matter how you try and twist things or deny what is there in black and white.}
Can't believe you thought you were wrong once Ed. You need to have more confidence in yourself mate lol.
{Ed007's Note - Thanks for the kind words and encouragement Marky, it's appreciated. I will try to be more self-assured and confident in future.}
Your self built pedestal is just a tad too high on occasions Ed. And less of the ramblings about your greatness please. Great people don't need to blow their own trumpet and by God you're well out of breath after your efforts!
{Ed007's Note - I can feel your jealousy Chris, don't worry I'm used to people feeling like that around me. You are in the company of some good people wishing you could even scratch the surface of my superiority. I will admit I have set the bar too high for the likes of you, don't be afraid of failure.
How's it going now with your changing the law over the recording of arrests and offences? Maybe you should try politics, we all know politicians aren't the brightest, you should fit right in. I hope you appreciate these words, I usually get well paid for my motivational speaking to try and inspire others to better themselves or even attempt to reach my level, you can have this as a freebie though, even my generosity is above and beyond the normal man in the street. }
BTW I totally agree with your original point Ed. You know my feelings on Griffiths are pretty much the same as your own and that was before I knew he had this hanging over his head. Like I've said before if he's in the team I'll support him but I would much prefer if he wasn't.
{Ed007's Note - He is already dragging the name of the club through the mud Marky and he hasn't been here two months. The story will be reported 'Celtic Striker Leigh Griffiths...'
Don't be surprised if (when?) more and more stories ends up in the public domain. It's ridiculous, embarrassing and a prime example of the decline in overall standards at the club, including playing ability.}
Everything is logged. I have a police caution, wasn't convicted but its on my record.
I don't get some people, why are footballers exempt from morals? "If he performs I'll back him" - so if Celtic sign a thug, racist, shoplifter, excuse of a man who can't support their children - you're ok with that ChrisBhoy? As long as he can perform for Celtic? Oh wait, you've just said that about Leigh Griffiths who is all of the above I've mentioned. He could score the Champions League + World Cup winning goals for Celtic and Scotland, I still won't back him merely for the ******* he is!
20 Mar 2014 11:25:30
Hamilton bhoy what do you do when Griffiths scores a goal for celtic? Do you stay in your seat and not celebrate?
Faithful through and through indeed!
@hamiltonbhoy totally agree with what you posted. Realistically there will be a celtic supporter out there who has been the victim of a similar crime to what griffiths has done and will be contributing to his wages! Major mistake signing him and a total lack of respect by lawell and lennon if they think this is acceptable. Who next? Marlon king?
Always an interesting read on the Celtic pages. Lol.
But see changes to The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 that came into force on 10 March this year ed.
A lot of historical offences will now be spent after a much less specified time.
{Ed007's Note - Doesn't the changes only mean that certain convictions do not need to be declared after the set spent time? All charges whether convicted or not are still recorded and kept. If you request an enhanced disclosure all police reports, charges, convictions and sentences will be included whereas under a basic disclosure (which started in 2003) only unspent convictions are shown.
It is immaterial though, the fact is that these recent charges will be recorded on Leigh Griffiths permanent record, that is nothing to do with disclosure.}
@HenriksTongue You're right, I didn't celebrate them. I refuse to support someone of his low order. There's a line, and when someone has conduct themselves in the manner LG has, he's crossed it and isn't worthy of pulling on the famous green and white hoops!
If you're working with vulnerable people the record is kept. Otherwise spent.
I suppose you could say footy players are in regular contact with under 16's so his may be kept.
The Court may now adjourn.
Lol.
{Ed007's Note - No mate, there is always a record kept of all police reports and charges etc. not just convictions. I am not talking about rules of disclosure, I am talking about the files that are kept on you by the authorities e.g. the police. There is a difference, read up on any famous/infamous cases like Thomas Hamilton, Ian Huntley, Fred West etc and you will plainly see that cases and investigations about them became public knowledge after the fact. Here is an example with regards to Hamilton: http://goo.gl/0Ca5Xh
He was only 22 when he was given the grievance that festered inside him for the rest of his life: his dismissal from the 4/6 Stirling District Scouts on the grounds that he was not suitable to be a troup leader. Convinced from that moment that people were seeing him as a pervert, Hamilton fought a running battle with officialdom for the next 21 years. And most of the time the misfit easily saw off all the police and bureaucrats.
Four Scottish police forces investigated Hamilton after parents made at least 12 complaints or accusations. Each time detectives failed to find a case that would stand up in court. Central Regional Council tried to stop him holding his boys' club meeting in Dunblane High School in the early 1980s. He forced it to back down.
How would people have known this if there was no records kept of the investigation? As I have said, all of your past indiscretions, no matter the outcome of the case are kept on record, whether they are liable to be revealed under disclosure is another matter altogether and nothing to do with my original point.}
Unless it's the South Yorkshire Police though ed eh?
Ooops, I never said that Officer.
{Ed007's Note - I don't like to discriminate, I'm more an #ACAB #1312 man myself :)
20 Mar 2014 22:02:34
@HamiltonBhoy have you wrote to celtic to express your opinion on Leigh Griffiths? My point is no one is perfect and to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) he hasn't done anything wrong in his short time at the club. I'm willing to give him a chance. After all he's still only a young guy. I hope he's realised that he's been given a real chance to make something of himself.
{Ed007's Note - Is appearing at court and dragging the name of the club through the mud not wrong then?}
20 Mar 2014 22:02:18
007
cheers
BBJ
{Ed007's Note - You're trying to use a man's problems, which mostly stem from his addictions, to justify things Griffiths has done and I hardly think leaving your wife for another women constitutes any comparison to Griffiths personal life. That happens all the time whereas I doubt Griffiths would ever have found 4 women in his life to have sex with him if he wasn't a footballer! Griffiths had had plenty of time to mature, grow-up and take responsibility for his actions - he turns 24 later this year, and he hasn't. At that age you're all the man you're ever going to be.}
20 Mar 2014 22:44:13
You said yourself ed that it's the way the papers report it and never actually happened when he was at Celtic. Which was my point.
{Ed007's Note - My point is he has been at the club not 2 months yet and already he has dragged the name of the club through the courts and the mud, perhaps the club should have looked into this better when they signed him. I wonder if it's possible there are more outstanding police investigations or court proceedings the fans don't know about?}
I'm sure the club knew the implications of signing the guy Ed. His past hasn't come out of the blue and the club surely knew these things were surfacing. Perhaps they decided to give the lad a chance. It would be nice if the supporters did the same. If (but according to you it's more a case of when!) he goes wrong then let's deal with it at the time.
Let those who have never done anything wrong in their lives be the ones to criticise him. In the meantime the rest of us should keep our counsel for a while longer.
Hail Hail