DoofersDad

But that's where inconsistency and discrimination creep in and cause problems. Are you saying it's OK for a dad with a young child or for a "respectable" looking middle aged lady to be allowed to break the rules but not a group of perfectly decent youngsters who are wearing team shirts. If stewards use what they think is common sense and initiative it will mean that some supporters will get annoyed not just because a silly rule is being enforced but because the steward has made a judgement that the person they have targeted might just be the type of ned who will throw a bottle onto the pitch. It will be the inconsistency of approach andthe prejudices of individual stewards that will cause the agro rather than the rule itself. The rule should be "no throwing of bottles" rather than "no bottles". That way, everyone can be treated the same and with respect.

I agree with the first bit but why should Butcher make him suffer? He is potentially one of our most influential players for the coming season and Butcher's job is to make sure OTJ understands that he cannot afford to react like that again. He also needs to understand that every other team in the SPL will now be primed to press OTJ's buttons. Butcher will understand from his own personal experience the dangers of misplaced aggression and far from making OTJ suffer he needs to support him and work with him to channel his aggression constructively to the benefit of the team.

This was my first game of the season. It was an interesting day and these are my thoughts for what they are worth. It was disappointing not to win after the start we got. We could have been out of sight after 20 minutes. Twice the ball broke free in the 6 yard box but there was nobody following up from midfield to take the pickings on offer. This was a symptom both of playing generally too deep and also a general lack of understanding of where everbody was meant to be playing. It's a new unit and that better understanding will come. King and Warren looked pretty solid and Raven was generally OK. I thought Shinnie played well and offered more creatively going forward. OTJ and Draper both have a presence and skill. Draper in particular looks inpressive going forward but both appeared to need either to up their work rate or get a bit fitter. I'm still not convinced by Sutherland as a winger and feel Mackay would be more effective playing off Sutherland up front. The crowd was poor both in terms of numbers and noise. The guy next to me, for example, clapped when Shinnie scored and at no other time. I just do not get the mentality of people who attend and cannot be bothered to even applaud when players play well. Then there were the usual hecklers who shouted abuse to our own team whenever a move broke down. How on earth do they think that is going to motivate the guys? Then there were the ones who left early - a couple of guys left, one saying "I've had anough of this sh*te". It's not what goes on on the pitch that might put me off going to games, it is being surrounded by people like that which p***es me off. I could maybe understand that reaction at the end of last season when there had been a lot of problems and the style of play was not good. But what was really pleasing yesterday was that there was a real desire to play attractive football. It seems that the criticism of the style of play has been listened to and we will get a more attractive passing game. There were very few hoofed high balls up to Billy Mackay and as a result I thought he looked a lot more threatening than I have seen previously. Of course, for this to work well the team needs to get a better understanding and at times yesterday they looked very much as though they were trying to find their way. I saw a lot yesterday which gives me cause to think that when the players get to know each other better we could see some really good football at TCS this season. I just hope that supporters appreciate what's on offer and give the team some proper support.

There was a lady a few rows in front of me in section C who was not in the first flush of youth and who was drinking from a small plastic bottle. Hardly a threat to anyone. Two stewards approached her and she had to hand over the bottle. She was allowed to finish the water (or gin) but it was like an addict having their dose of methadone being supervised in a pharmacy. It may seem very unnecessary but the problem lies with the rule and not the stewards. It is all very well saying stewards should use their common sense and not enforce these rules, but where do you draw the line? Most people who might have a bottle of water to slake their thirst on a warm day are not going to look as though they may hurl the bottle onto the pitch, and how can a steward reasonably say to somone that they are confiscating their bottle because they look as though they are the sort of person who may throw it. And what happens if they don't enforce the rule and then someone throws a bottle and someone gets injured? The stewards would be pilloried for not doing their job. As with so many things in life the answer should be in dealing severely with those who cause trouble rather than preventing trouble by penalising law abiding decent folk. Not being able to take a bottle in with you to drink is crazy.

You ask what the point is of carrying on with the arguments and then proceed to carry on with the argument! Why should the 800,000 scots or however many there may be living in England or anywhere else get a vote? Why should people who happen to have been born in Scotland and have chosen to live elsewhere get a vote? It is those of us who actually live in Scotland regardless of where we were born who should get the vote. Terry Butcher was born in Singapore so are you suggesting he should only be allowed to vote on matters affecting Singapore?

It's a lovely day to day. The walk will do you good.

Soldiers down South get the olympics but those stationed up North get to watch ICT. Those down South must be thinking it is all so unfair.

Laurence, if the thought of independence is so awful you could always move back to England. I'm English, I like it here and I'm staying.

We live in a parliamentary democracy with laws being made by the people for the people. If you don't like a law there are ways of lobbying to get the law changed. Some laws are stupid because sometimes we elect stupid people to parliament. Some people think some laws are stupid but fail to understand the rationalle for that law. But love 'em or hate 'em laws are laws and there are penalties for breaking them. If you knowingly break a law which you don't happen to like then you can really have no complaint if you receive that penalty.

It's a stupid rule. How on earth are the train drivers going to pass their time now? Seriously though, it is not drink that is the problem, it is people who are the problem. Most people who enjoy a drink on the train cause no offence to anyone. Most people who cause a problem when they have had a drink are annoying a***holes when they are sober. The guards need to ensure the behaviour of passengers is appropriate regardless of whether it is drink related or not. Those who do not abuse alcohol should not be punished because a minority do. If the guards won't do their job then they should be sacked but it is vital that they are given every protection the law affords with those who threaten or assault the guards doing their job being given hefty sentences. Why can't the courts give them meaningful community punishments like cleaning the train toilets for the next 3 years? My own personal story of being uncomfortable on a train relates to the London underground when I was a student. I was travelling with a fellow student who was the son of a white Kenyan farmer and who was fluent in Swahili. Opposite us were four large black guys speaking loudly in what was evidently Swahili. My "friend" got off the train 3 stops before me and as he got up to get off the train he spoke to the four in Swahili. For the rest of the journey the four of them sat in silence staring at me with looks that could kill. I've never felt so uncomfortable on a train and he never did tell me what he said to them.

What a lot of drivel on this thread. The fact is that team GB has already won 22 gold medals and there are more to come. Team GB has got more golds than in any Olympics since 1908 and clearly far more nations compete these days. It is safe to say this is the best performance ever and we should celebrate that. It is a British team comprising of individuals from all corners of the UK, some as individuals and some as members of teams. Some are Scottish, some Welsh, some Irish and some English. Some of the Scots live in England and some of the English live in Scotland. Some of the Scots have English parents and some of the English have Scottish parents. The support teams consist of a similar eclectic mixes of the UK's constituent citizens. This is a UK team and it seems pointless to think of Scottish medals or English medals or to conjecture how a Scottish team representing an independent Scotland might fare in the future. What I can say with some certainty is that those wishing an independent Scotland should be celebrating the success of team GB because it represents success for Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom. The success will hopefully spur youngsters from all parts of the UK to take up sport. As a result, success for Scotland as an independent nation in any future games will be more likely because of the legacy of team GB.

Couldn't agree more. I understand her wanting to spend more time with her family but she has made a commitment to her constituents, The answer should be for her husband to support her in the commitment she has made and which, I assume, he supported her in when she made it. Could he not be UK based and still manage Metallica? Or does this have more to do with rates of taxation than with family togetherness?

Could the police split the fixed penalty charges with the club? We could then put notices up on the verges saying "Away Support Parking"

Absolutely. Old Rangers wound up with over £100million of debt and new Rangers spend freely in the transfer market just to show that now that they have re-emerged as a debt free club, they have more money than the rest of us. Potential investors who would not have put their money in to subsidise the debt of old Rangers can now feel confident that their money can be used to take the club forward. I understand this is the way company law works but it doesn't make it right.

Even if Guy did punch Draper full in the face with a closed fist, to lie on the ground like he did was a bit OTT IMHO. If the punch was hard enough to knock him out then OK, but if Guy can deliver a punch with sufficient force to knock someone out when the video shows that it is not even obvious that he is throwing a punch at all, then Guy should give up football and take up boxing - he'd be world champ within a year. And that is not in any way defending Guy who will hopefully get a lengthy ban, it is just saying that Draper's reaction seemed somewhat inappropriate although not as inappropriate as the likes of Samaras last year.

That's encouraging. It seems there is a more positive approach generally this season. I look forward to the Kilmarnock game with anticipation.

I wasn't at the game so can't comment on how we tried to defend the lead in the last few minutes but what I can say is that we have conceded late in a lot of games and there must be a reason for that. Too often the tactic is simply to pack the defence leaving one at most up front. That doesn't make sense to me. Hoofing the ball up the park to clear the pressure simply gives the ball back to opposition who come at you again and again, players are out of position, get in each others way, get put under pressure and make mistakes. Opponents are given new hope and are roared on by their support. Better is to make sure you keep possession as much as posible. That doesn't mean you throw yourself into attack but if you can keep the ball in the opposition half as much as possible it means they get fewer chances to put pressure on. That means they are under more pressure to make it count when they do get the ball. If they over commit then they are vulnerable themselves. This retreating into a defensive shell is like handing a mugger a knife just to show you are no threat to them. If we do that, is it any wonder we get mugged so often.

We're top of the league. Can the season end now!

Risky for the blokes but it has a different effect on the ladies. For example, there was Victoria Pendleton this evening - got disqualified but was still smiling half an hour later.

Someone who's a basket case?

Well, an 18 year old getting up before 9am to go for a walk in the woods sure sounds suspicious to me.

I'd echo that. But what is really remarkable about Wiggins' victory is the margin of victory. He won by 41 seconds in an event lasting just under an hour. He could have stopped and signed a few autographs and still won.

Regardless of whether you would expect the team that played tonight to beat the HL champions the point here is surely that we should be putting out a side that would be expected to beat them. Playing in this competition is an opportunity for a few fringe players to play with some first choice players in a competetive environment and to improve the bonding of the team. Playing a few games in this competition would also have helped to give match practice to one or two players who may have limited opportunity later in the season but will be thrown in the deep end if and when their chance comes. By fielding a team that was too lightweight, we have lost that opportunity. If we are going to field a makeshift team that is likely to go out in the first round then I seriously wonder why we bothered to enter the competition in the first place. No :clown: etc on this post, Oddquine. This is seriously disappointing. There has been a big misjudgement on team selection tonight because we need competetive games outside of the SPL.

I know what you mean .....

In my post above I refered to Sheikh Saeed bin Maktoum Al Maktoum. I am sure everyone has been far too polite to point out my error. His name is, of course, Sheikh Saeed bin Maktoum Bin Rashid Al Maktoum. I have been advised I need to correct this dreadful error if I ever want to fly Emiratres again.