DoofersDad

I wonder if there is any evidence that this legalised defacing of our environment actually makes any difference. For all the time and effort it takes to do, I also wonder why the parties don't direct their energies into actually arguing their case. Perhaps this task is given to those who support the party but can't explain why to anyone. That would explain why there are so many more posters from one particular party. Incidentally, somebody has been out and about at night in Culbokie and taken down all the posters regardless of Party. The police are keen to apprehend him - not to prosecute him, but to ask if he could do his stuff after the elections when the so called "activists" who were so keen to put this litter up are somewhat less active in taking it down.

I assume the minute attached to the notification refers to the AGM of 2016 and not of 2015 as actually stated on the minute. That being the case, reading the minute will clarify the reason for an EGM. I also assume that there is a requirement to give not less that 2 weeks notice for an EGM and if so, this notification just meets that requirement. However, if the need for an EGM was agreed back in February and the meeting is not taking place until 9 weeks later, it would have been good to get a little more notice. Short notice always impacts on attendance. It doesn't exactly encourage folk to get involved. No doubt the "mess" that is referred to in the minute is a consequence of one or two folk not really appreciating the importance of adhering to the rules of the organisation even for a small and relatively informal group like CJT. When people give of their valuable time it can often seem unnecessarily time consuming to follow the rules to the letter, but failing to do so clearly does lead to difficulty. Hopefully folk can learn from any mistakes and forgive others for theirs. CJT can then move on in a rather more disciplined way which, in turn, might encourage others to get involved. Discontent amongst fans over one or two issues is evident on other threads and therefore it is important that CJT is functioning on a sound footing in order to act as an effective liaison group between the fans and the club.

Personally I think agents are a real cancer in the modern game. But having said that, there should be nothing to stop the club informing the player that they want to keep him, that an offer has been made and that there is a deadline for the completion of any negotiation over terms. It would then be for the player to instruct his agent to negotiate within those parameters, to keep the player informed of progress and to consult with the player over relevant detail. I appreciate agents will want to drag negotiations out but negotiations will only drag on if both sides allow them to. The club needs players signed up and if a preferred player does not sign then they need to open talks with someone else. The longer "negotiations" continue, the weaker the club's position become as other available players get signed up elsewhere. If the club was to adopt a no nonsense policy of setting deadlines and sticking to them, then that would concentrate the minds of players and their agents. After the deadline, there would be no further negotiation but the offer could remain on the table until an alternative signing has been made, at which time the offer would be withdrawn.

I couldn't get to the rearranged game tonight but I agree that attacking football has not been on display a lot at TCS this season. However, at the moment, I think it is all about picking up enough points to ensure safety and I really don't care if the football that achieves it is not very pretty. I do share your concern for the future though. Unless the football on display is more entertaining to watch, people will stop coming and it will be hard to attract them back

Beat Killie and we are 11 points ahead with 12 points to play for. Can't see them winning all four and us losing all 4.

Kilmarnock v Utd as the last game of the season could be a bit tasty depending on what happens before.

No doubt IHE knows more about "grooming" than me, but I can't see Foran taking over from Hughes as good idea. Whatever his potential as a manager may be, he first either needs to be in charge at a lower level or be appointed as number 2 at a bigger club. He needs the first hand experience and to prove he can do the job.

It was a great Masters. Tremendous drama on the final day. A British winner, No less than 6 Brits at equal 10th or better, Ernie Els 6 putting from about 3 foot on the first hole - and this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/36011707 It is a shame Russell Knox did not make the cut but hopefully he will bounce back and get another opportunity to shine at this wonderful tournament.

I think most people would agree with this. It is a shame therefore that just about every statement in your two lengthy posts are factually incorrect. Perhaps if you made the effort to find out what the facts actually are rather than simply inventing some statements to support your prejudices, you just might come to a different political point of view.

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Mutombo Opp Paterson Time 38 mins

HT 0-0 FT 1-1 1st ICT Polworth Ist Opp Mckay Time 63 mins

I don't know how many people heard BBC Radio Scotland's phone-in this morning, but I think Louse White must have been sitting in the studio with her "The Rangers" top on. The question being asked was "Do you welcome Rangers' return to the Premiership?" White was getting very aggressive with folk who calmly pointed out that Rangers had been liquidated and that "The Rangers" were a new club who will be entering the top flight for the first time. Her stock answer was "Yes, but it's the same club". Well done Willie from Inverness who made the point very well! Will the presence of The Rangers make the top flight stronger next year? Very probably, yes. But that is not the point. The point is that Rangers went into liquidation as a result of years of incompetent and criminal mismanagement leaving many individuals and small businesses with unpaid debts. The appropriate authorities then allowed a new club to be formed and gifted them the assets of the former club. The appropriate authorities then failed to apply their own rules about clubs applying to the SFL to have a minimum of 2 years audited accounts, and allowed "The Rangers" immediate entry into the league structure. The appropriate authorities then decreed that a man who has several convictions for fraud was a fit and proper person to be chairman of The Rangers. The appropriate authorities have since allowed the Rangers to buy success. They have allowed the club to operate with a massive operating loss so that it can borrow large sums of money to pay better players. Finally after all this collusion by various "appropriate authorities" "The Rangers" have finally made it to the top flight. Meanwhile all these various authorities collude with others, including the BBC, to call the new club "Rangers" as if it is exactly the same club and that the whole shameful episode was just a temporary blip in the history of the club. Of, course, the only regard in which the club does not want to be considered one and the same with the old club, is in honouring the debts of the old club. Honest folk who provided services to Rangers are left out of pocket and honest tax payers look on whilst massive tax debts remain unpaid. So, do I welcome the arrival of "The Rangers" to the Premiership? No, It shames Scottish football and it shames those various authorities who have failed to apply relevant legislation and regulations. Today's phone-in also shamed the BBC.

The message that comes over loud and clear from Davie's post is "let's discuss these important issues in a civilised manner". That means ignoring posts like Dougiedanger's. One of the problems we face is that SNP supporters constantly want to stifle debate. What I would say to Dougiedanger is that if he doesn't like the thread he doesn't have to read it. But what on earth gives him the right to say that others shouldn't be able to voice their views? But coming back to Davie's comments on one of my earlier posts, there are two issues to respond to. Firstly, it is not as simple as the Tories not attracting enough votes. The issue is that they have been demonised by the SNP and people believe the SNP when the facts paint a different picture. A number of examples have been given in previous posts but nobody who supports the SNP has been able to challenge any of those criticisms. As an example, I'll respond to Davie's post when he says " The austerity argument is muddled, especially from the NHS point of view. What “significant” parts of the NHS have been contracted to the private sector?" If you have a sight test on the NHS or if you get dental treatment on the NHS, it is probable that you will be seen by a private optician or a private dentist. The vast majority of GPs and all community pharmacists are private contractors. Just a tiny percentage of Opticians, Dentists and GPs are employed by the NHS. Health Boards regularly contract with private hospitals to reduce waiting lists for operations and there are contracts with private companies for the provision of some aspects of Home care for illness such as MS, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and some cancers etc. This involves things such as specialist nurses coming in to give injections, provide ostomy care etc. These examples certainly represent a "significant" amount of NHS activity but yet the SNP have told the people that they want to stop the Tories involving the private sector in the provision of direct patient care in the NHS! Linked to that is today's news about the multimillion pound deficit NHS Highland Health Board faces next year. Budgets are tight, but whose fault is that Tory Austerity? Well, to a point. Had the Tories taxed the better of more in the last few years there would have been more money available for public services. They can be reasonably criticised for that. And what about the SNP? Regardless of what the Tories have done, the SNP chose to freeze council tax and then compensate the councils for loss of revenue. By doing that, there was, of course, less money available for other services such as the NHS. That was SNP austerity. And now this year, the SNP could be raising taxes but has decided not to. As a result, there will be less money for the NHS. Again, SNP austerity and nothing to do with the Tories. So, I don't think my austerity argument is muddled with respect to the NHS. The SNP know that the public take great pride in the NHS and have sold the idea that the NHS is under-funded and under threat from "privatisation" with the Tories. The truth is that the SNP are just as accountable (if not more so) for under-funding, and that the SNP itself relies heavily on the private sector and has absolutely no plans to get rid of it.

Alex, I am only defending Charles in as much that his posts have contained several legitimate points that go unanswered. I think he would be more effective in making those points if he didn't communicate his dislike for the SNP in such a disparaging way. I used to have respect for the SNP when it's political leaders were principled and made their case honestly. Unfortunately things have changed. A whiff of power and the leadership has become intoxicated. They now see the goal of independence almost in their grasp and will do whatever it takes to reach that goal. Part of that is persuading the people that the actions of the Westminster establishment are creating disadvantage to the people of Scotland and that this can only be rectified by independence. Given that we have a Conservative UK Government but only 1 Conservative MP in Scotland, the SNP claim we are disenfranchised and single out the Tories as the object of blame, grievance and, sadly, hate. It all fuels the fan. It is completely understandable that many who understand the tactics and hypocrisy of the current SNP leadership have complete contempt for them and it is deeply frustrating that so many people continue to be duped by their dishonesty. I'm angry about it, but personally, I prefer to patiently persuade people by making arguments based on the facts. I tend to find that people are more receptive to the arguments if you don't refer to them first as "the great unwashed". But it is interesting that you say "His is not a view of the political health of the modern country that is Scotland but an unhealthy hatred for one party." It is interesting because generating a hatred for one party is exactly what the SNP are doing! The SNP are not concerned with the political health of Scotland. They are simply concerned with attaining independence. Part of their strategy is to get a large proportion of the population to hate the Tories and I am confident that they will be "found out" before they do much more damage to Scotland.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/spfl/880755/fon-williams-looking-sign-new-caley-thistle-contract/ Fon Williams sounds very keen to stay in Inverness. He didn't have his finest 94 minutes on Saturday but hopefully he can be signed up soon.

Alex, that is pathetic and not worthy of you. For all Charles' flippancy or offensiveness (whatever you want to call it) he has actually made more reasoned and evidenced points in this thread than all the SNP supporting contributors put together. In any case, if his posts are deemed to be offensive then, as you well know, there is a mechanism to warn and, if necessary, ban people from contributing to a particular thread. Failing that, you can simply choose to ignore his posts. Of course, just because you find Charles offensive is absolutely no reason not to engage in debate with others, particularly when some folk other than the usual suspects have recently joined the debate. It really does smack of finding any excuse to avoid defending the indefensible. And please don't include Oddquine in your indignant little claim to the moral high ground. It was Oddquine in the Referendum debate, you may recall, who posted that she sometimes wondered whether the independence movement would have achieved independence had they copied the Irish and killed for it. Now that really is offensive. Several serious points against the SNP and it's strategy and policy have been made on this thread which nobody has even tried to counter. Unless you or anyone else can come on here and debate these points then the only conclusion I will draw is that you don't dispute the arguments made.

Trust me. I'm a Registered Nurse.

Wee Nicola: Are the Shetlands going to vote SNP? Wee pony: Neigh!

Wouldn't surprise me if Raven went to County the way he appears to be being treated here. They have been shipping goals badly this season. I think he would suit their style of play. That would be a real sickener. Hughes, Cameron - get this fine young player signed up ASAP.

Good post. People have complained about the impact of injuries this season but it's interesting to compare our best current team with the team that took to the park on Hughes' first match in charge. Ross, Shinnie, Watkins and McKay were the four players who started then who have since left. In the meantime, Christie has burst into the side and has left. Vincent and Williams who were also here when Hughes arrived are leaving at the end of the season. Other Butcher signings like Tansey and Raven may also leave. Hughes (or the Chairman) has brought in new players, but of those who show even any potential to match those who have left (Storey, Roberts, Vigurs, Mutombo) none are yet signed up for next season. The stark truth is that the talent available to Hughes when he took over was significantly better than what is available now. And as things stand, we will be significantly weaker again at the start of next season.

Woah! Whilst I think Osborne clearly spells out that the Tories have done a huge amount for the very people the SNP have persuaded to despise them, I don't think I am inclined to vote for them. Without a doubt, the Tories have put more money in the pockets of working people and have got more people back into work, and whilst that is great, it does come at a cost. The Tories by nature are a low tax party and as a result they have less to spend on public services and infrastructure. (Which suits the SNP just fine) I think we need to spend more on public services and infrastructure. The necessary period of austerity would have been less painful if those best able to afford it had been asked by the Tories and the SNP to pay a bit more tax over the last few years. Higher rates of income and more money for public services would certainly have given the SNP less to bleat about, although of course, now that the SNP have the opportunity to support public services by increasing income tax, they choose not to. All part of the "keep the pain and blame going" strategy of the Scottish Nasty Party. Whilst the Tories are clearly far more deserving of people's votes than the SNP, I think I will probably vote for a party that is willing to build on the Tories' solid foundation and which has the guts to put taxes up. It does, unfortunately, still look as though the SNP will have a massive victory. Whilst I probably won't vote for the Conservatives, I do hope they get enough representation to regularly remind the Scottish people that the Westminster Tory Government has done far more for the people of Scotland than the SNP Government in Holyrood ever has.

I actually don't have a problem with this. To be fair to Hearts, they really have no particular reason for wanting to duck the game. They are in 3rd place 12 points behind Aberdeen and 12 points ahead of Motherwell. They are going to finish 3rd and they are out of the cup. I appreciate that with the size of their squad they probably could field a side, but there is a likelihood of other players falling ill in the next 24 hours and a trip up and down the A9 in a coach would not be a good idea in the circumstances. It is certainly against any medical advice they will be getting. The nature of the problem makes this quite a different issue than shortages through injury - it is about preventing spread of the outbreak and not just about player availability. With that in mind, there is also the point that if Hearts were to field infected players then the illness could be passed to our squad. In any case, the game has been re-scheduled for a week tomorrow when it is likely that their squad will still not be fully fit (but no longer infectious). What also benefits us is that we now don't have a match prior to the Utd game and can therefore prepare fully for that without risking further injuries or suspensions. Saturday's game is a massive game and will be a huge step towards securing our survival if we win. By the way, I think the problems started with Oshaniwa on Saturday. He got sent off and went for an early barf.

Saints preserve us from any one who thinks they are "immortal"! I think there's a lot of truth in what you are saying but would add that for managers who have been very successful as players, they also seem to have an expectation that they should be managing at the same level with the same success. When the team does not achieve that, they start to blame everyone except themselves. In his interview after the game on Saturday, Hughes was bemoaning the fact that poor defending and an inability to get the ball over the line at the other end cost us a game we dominated. Of course individual players make errors, but just who is it that chooses to play one of our two best central defenders at right back and our only striker on the wing? Hughes may justify the decisions based on what limited options he has, but whose fault is it that we don't have adequate cover in these positions? Whatever talents Hughes may have, it does seem that getting the right mix of players signed up on contracts is not one of them. And frankly, if you do not have the right mix of players signed up, it really doesn't matter what your other talents are, you are not going to have success. Hughes needs to demonstrate some success in getting current players onto new contracts and signing some better players from elsewhere. If he can't because the Board is cutting back on the budget then he at least needs to use the budget he has to get a better balance within the squad. He shouldn't be publicly bleating on about how limited our budget is and he certainly shouldn't be deflecting the blame onto the players. Actions speak louder than words and we need some action from the manager on the contract front - and soon.

Couldn't agree more. Can't help but feel that a fit Raven at right back yesterday would have given us more width and penetration going forward. Meanwhile, Meekings back in the middle with Warren would have given us a bit more solidity at the back. It would be absolutely crazy not to offer Raven a contract.