I am sure that I do not need to go through the press headlines of the past week relating Mr Green to Mr Whyte. Sadly, as I have feared for some time, there appears to be a correlation between the two parties that has become somewhat exposed. Even at its most minimal of contact the relationship is enough to infer that Charles Green has lied to the Rangers support.
She was a woman that split opinion, a woman revered, a woman hated; but she was a woman, a mother, a daughter, a wife.
News of LNS decision not to strip Rangers of titles has been met with some major, though not unsurprising disdain among many football supporters. When I first turned on the radio on Thursday afternoon to hear the news I was not at all surprised with the learned Lords judgement. Simply put, LNS arrived at the correct conclusion.
I wrote this piece recently after reading a few articles in newspapers etc. I have a slight interest in Medical Law – although granted in relation to negligence as opposed to ethics. So here goes…..
Medical treatment; our rights and choices towards it and the laws governing such has often been viewed as a complex subject, mainly due to the ever changing nature of medical advancement; in contrast with the slow change of legal statute. There are four main principles in medical ethics: Autonomy, Beneficence[1], Non- Maleficence[2] and Justice. However, one particular principle that those studying the law towards medical ethics have always found difficult to fully answer is in respect to the autonomy of a child in relation to their ability to consent to, or refuse medical treatment.
The law has long accepted that from the age of 18[3], most adults have the right to accept or to refuse medical treatment on the basis that they are fully competent.[4] The question that arises is: do children also have a legally recognised right to consent or withhold consent to medical treatment? The answer to such could be termed as subjective, depending on the nature of the child as an individual. However the law does have measures in place with respect to this controversial matter.
A discussion developed earlier on Twitter regarding my provision in an earlier post that Rangers are still Rangers in almost every shape and form.
First of all, I would thank everyone that reads my blog. At the end of the day, these are nothing but my own musings and although I will often diverge into other avenues of interest one thing that I continue to return to is the debate surrounding Rangers. People will not always agree on football; indeed it would be a very dull and boring sport if someone were to remove the subjectivity from it.
I have written extensively in the past regarding the law of social media and employment matters that you can have a read at here.
This time I once again find myself falling into the trap of discussing social media but this time in relation to defamation. My main reason for writing this piece is because of the recent settlement between the BBC and Lord McAlpine.
So where do Rangers really stand, where does league reconstruction take us and where is Scottish Football really going?
It has been a long time since I have written anything on this page. At present, I am far too busy to write anything other than my own research – something that sadly falls out with the walls of Scottish Football. However, as my concentration has completely gone I felt I may as well talk about some recent developments in Scottish Football.
First of all, let us address Hearts and their situation as this is clearly the biggest story in Scottish Football at present. Sadly it does not look good for Hearts at this present time. The club may owe a debt to HMRC that could see them facing imminent administration but for me, that is nothing short of the tip on a very large iceberg. The club owe sums of money in the region of £30 million to Romanov’s parent company. To be rather blunt, that is the debt that Hearts fans should be more worried about.
