Will there be a World Cup boycott?

[Springbank]

As others have pointed out here: there is as yet zero evidence that Russia was involved in the Salisbury attack.

I understand the poison (the weapon) was originally designed by Russia.

But if you were chibbed by someone using a Swiss army knife do we declare war on the Swiss army??

I for one am glad we have a far fairer and more civilised (and legal) approach to life in Scotland. I'd hate to live in the rUK

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When I first read the title of this thread I assumed it was about the price increase of the panini stickers for this years World Cup.

I know. 16p per sticker up from 10p last time. It's scandalous. I'm not sure if I can boycott Panini though. Our completed 2014 album is a piece of art.

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

well i'm proud that my beloved Scotland have already boycotted the WC in russia, if only engerlund had the guts/morals to do the same

p.s. no participating country will boycott :)

Obviously. If they were boycotting they would not be participating.

A ‘lucky loser’ would be called up in place of an absentee.

Denmark didn’t qualify for a European Championship held in Sweden in the 1990s. Then Yugoslavia were expelled for no longer actually existing (or some such). Denmark were called up and won the event!

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As others have pointed out here: there is as yet zero evidence that Russia was involved in the Salisbury attack.

It is simply not true to claim there is "zero" evidence - evidence is there and there is no other plausible explanation or do you have one?

The EU is recalling its ambassador to Moscow and diplomats may well be recalled too, I don't quite see how you can claim that all this happening on the basis of "zero evidence" ?

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It is simply not true to claim there is "zero" evidence - evidence is there and there is no other plausible explanation or do you have one?

The EU is recalling its ambassador to Moscow and diplomats may well be recalled too, I don't quite see how you can claim that all this happening on the basis of "zero evidence" ?

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence. That's rightly enough to lead to questions being asked of Russia. There is no hard evidence, and certainly no proof.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Scotland have boycotted every World Cup after 1998, when Blatter arrived.

We are now continuing that noble position by boycotting Russia, and presumably the Qatar finals

Makes me proud to be Scottish


-----------------


As for England, they quite obviously have no morals

[Salisbury Hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence. That's rightly enough to lead to questions being asked of Russia. There is no hard evidence, and certainly no proof.

No hard evidence made public. You don't know and I don't know. But I don't think the UK Government would be playing a game of call my bluff with the Russians if they didn't have any.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence. That's rightly enough to lead to questions being asked of Russia. There is no hard evidence, and certainly no proof.

As you say there is plenty of circumstantial evidence - that alone disproves the belief that there is "zero evidence" - you seem to be implying that circumstantial evidence is not as valid as hard evidence or "proof" - that is not the case either in legalistic terms and practise ...

All the circumstantial evidence points to one plausible explanation only ... there may well be further "hard" evidence of a sensitive nature that cannot be made public at this time -

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As you say there is plenty of circumstantial evidence - that alone disproves the belief that there is "zero evidence" - you seem to be implying that circumstantial evidence is not as valid as hard evidence or "proof" - that is not the case either in legalistic terms and practise ...

All the circumstantial evidence points to one plausible explanation only ... there may well be further "hard" evidence of a sensitive nature that cannot be made public at this time -

Im not 'implying' circumstantial evidence isn't as valid as hard evidence, or 'proof', it's absolutely obvious! It should also be obvious that until you do have proof that can be corroborated, by public opinion and, crucially, under international law, you keep your mouth shut, as this Government has do spectacularly failed to do. No evidence has been presented to the UN authorities, just trial by media. Its a joke.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No hard evidence made public. You don't know and I don't know. But I don't think the UK Government would be playing a game of call my bluff with the Russians if they didn't have any.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

This sounds ominously like the WMD defence all over again.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im not 'implying' circumstantial evidence isn't as valid as hard evidence, or 'proof', it's absolutely obvious! It should also be obvious that until you do have proof that can be corroborated, by public opinion and, crucially, under international law, you keep your mouth shut, as this Government has do spectacularly failed to do. No evidence has been presented to the UN authorities, just trial by media. Its a joke.

That's going to be quite a precedent for burden of proof, at UN level and in the court of public opinion (incidentally the last place I would want to measure proof), to be applied in every single case involving, Israel, Turkey, the US, China or indeed anyone else where criminality, abuse of human rights or just plain allegations of rogue behaviour are concerned. Particularly if everyone is to keep their 'mouth shut' until such proof is furnished. Even more so if in any given circumstance a swift intervention is required.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This sounds ominously like the WMD defence all over again.

Except that the independent Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have been called in. So instead of relying solely on intelligence assessments there is going to be scientific analysis to prove what everyone already knows.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This sounds ominously like the WMD defence all over again.

For me, it feels more like the Thatcher/Falklands situation.

Government struggling....foreign nasties do something questionable.... government starts drums and whips up jingoism.... domestic struggles put to one side.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im not 'implying' circumstantial evidence isn't as valid as hard evidence, or 'proof', it's absolutely obvious! It should also be obvious that until you do have proof that can be corroborated, by public opinion and, crucially, under international law, you keep your mouth shut, as this Government has do spectacularly failed to do. No evidence has been presented to the UN authorities, just trial by media. Its a joke.

Corroborated by public opinion? Since when was rule of law a matter for corroboration by public opinion?

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

analysis to prove what everyone already knows.

if everyone already knows what happened, what's the point of getting inspectors in, even 2 weeks late? Maybe there shouldn't be any burden of proof at all?

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Corroborated by public opinion? Since when was rule of law a matter for corroboration by public opinion?

I assume youve misread what I said. Read it again.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

if everyone already knows what happened, what's the point of getting inspectors in, even 2 weeks late? Maybe there shouldn't be any burden of proof at all?

Because the Russians, apologists for the Russians and people who wish to presume their innocence until guilt is proven all demand hard scientific evidence to supplement the vast circumstantial evidence, before variously either continuing to deny it anyway or finally accepting what the evidence incontrovertibly demonstrates.

So this clearly isn't "a WMD defence all over again".

[One Day Soon]

Forgot to post in answer to the OP. No, there won't be a boycott but there certainly should be.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because the Russians, apologists for the Russians and people who wish to presume their innocence until guilt is proven all demand hard scientific evidence to supplement the vast circumstantial evidence, before variously either continuing to deny it anyway or finally accepting what the evidence incontrovertibly demonstrates.

So this clearly isn't "a WMD defence all over again".

I think it's highly unlikely that any hard evidence will be found that will point to Putin or the Russian government. Unless there's a handwritten post it note saying 'kill that spy felly and wash the nerve agent off your handsaftwerwards, thanks again Vladimir'. Whoever did it will be the best in the world at what they do and will have covered their tracks very well.

[Billy Whizz]

Money talks, can’t see countries pulling out if their likely to get payments in excess of £20million

[hibsbollah]

Paddy Power giving 10/1 on England boycotting if anyone fancies it.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I assume you've misread what I said. Read it again.

"It should also be obvious that until you do have proof that can be corroborated, by public opinion and, crucially, under international law, you keep your mouth shut, ..."


I not quite sure how I have "misread" what you posted - you clearly state that "... until you have proof that can be corroborated by public opinion ..."

Public opinion does not determine if proof is acceptable or not - as I say, not sure how I have have misunderstood you (apart from a certain time pressure acting on me and maybe the fact I've been here in Germany too long, maybe you could help me out ... )

In an open and transparent society such as the democratic UK, it is surely OK for news regarding a major incident such as this one to be put into the public domain, unlike in Russia where public opinion is determined by what Putin wants it to be at any given time ...

[Pretty Boy]

Any boycott, which their won't be, should focus on Putins appaling attitude towards human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms.

The political point scoring over the Salisbury incident is far more worthy of discussion than any of the above in most peoples eyes though.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"It should also be obvious that until you do have proof that can be corroborated, by public opinion and, crucially, under international law, you keep your mouth shut, ..."


I not quite sure how I have "misread" what you posted - you clearly state that "... until you have proof that can be corroborated by public opinion ..."

Public opinion does not determine if proof is acceptable or not - as I say, not sure how I have have misunderstood you (apart from a certain time pressure acting on me and maybe the fact I've been here in Germany too long, maybe you could help me out ... )

In an open and transparent society such as the democratic UK, it is surely OK for news regarding a major incident such as this one to be put into the public domain, unlike in Russia where public opinion is determined by what Putin wants it to be at any given time ...

The key quote which you missed is, 'crucially, under international law' the accusation has to be corroborated before you assume guilt and accuse. The very basis of modern standards of law is that the fact of guilt has to be proven before you demand punishment.

(being seen to be doing the right thing is also important, which is why I mentioned public opinion).

Some people seem to be admitting that a) there's no proof of guilt but b) we're going to punish anyway. Which is a bit self defeating if you want a notorious tyrant like Putin to become more respectful of the rule of law, no?

Icant wait for the world cup, always look forward to it massively.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any boycott, which their won't be, should focus on Putins appaling attitude towards human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms.

The political point scoring over the Salisbury incident is far more worthy of discussion than any of the above in most peoples eyes though.

They're probably both worthy of discussion. But ones relevant to the OP about a possible boycott and one isn't. It's not political point scoring, it's about facts

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They're probably both worthy of discussion. But ones relevant to the OP about a possible boycott and one isn't. It's not political point scoring, it's about facts

A lot of the discussion comes down to point scoring. Perception of the facts or otherwise changes to suit a viewpoint. I'd wager if Donald Trump or Raul Castro, as examples, where in Putins seat you could flip a lot of the arguments being put forward.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The key quote which you missed is, 'crucially, under international law' the accusation has to be corroborated before you assume guilt and accuse. The very basis of modern standards of law is that the fact of guilt has to be proven before you demand punishment.

(being seen to be doing the right thing is also important, which is why I mentioned public opinion).

Some people seem to be admitting that a) there's no proof of guilt but b) we're going to punish anyway. Which is a bit self defeating if you want a notorious tyrant like Putin to become more respectful of the rule of law, no?

Icant wait for the world cup, always look forward to it massively.

I didn't miss the "international law" bit, that was OK by me - the public opinion bit wasn't ...

As to the World Cup - I'm in Germany, what can I say

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A lot of the discussion comes down to point scoring. Perception of the facts or otherwise changes to suit a viewpoint. I'd wager if Donald Trump or Raul Castro, as examples, where in Putins seat you could flip a lot of the arguments being put forward.

That sounds like you're accusing me of double standards, which if so isnt very fair. I'd be equally interested to see proof of guilt before jumping to conclusions in all situations,regardless of who's involved.

[Pretty Boy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That sounds like you're accusing me of double standards, which if so isnt very fair. I'd be equally interested to see proof of guilt before jumping to conclusions in all situations,regardless of who's involved.

I'm not accsuing anyone of anything.

People see the world through their own eyes and perceive things accordingly. If it is an accusation then I'd level it at myself just as readily as I would at anyone else.

[O'Rourke3]

If I were going to boycott I'd fly out and prepare, then not show up. Then Italy could not be flown in... Not that that will happen. Technically GB&NI didn't show up at the Moscow Olympics either although a lot of our athletes did.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk