Where justice cannot be attained, the reality of considering private prosecutions of the enemy, shows a failure of public justice and public confidence. To rip off Superman's motto - Truth and Justice and the Scottish way - in 2024 at the apogee of the unchallenged diatribe of Jeanette Findlay, that sentiment is now redundant. There is no better tomorrow for Scotland's substantial Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland (GOLS) members and supporters. In addition, the SFA decision to body-swerve concerns into a clear and obvious 'error', with instant consequences highlights again that institutions should first deal with human spitefulness before entrusting the latest technology to certain individuals.
This has now become distorted. Truth has become lies and it's demonstrable by the decision not to pursue a 'hate crime' incident to the detriment of Findlay, that justice is unquestionably a 'two tier' system. This is also played out in other areas of society such as the euphemistically described 'small boats' invaders. If the law does not apply to illegal criminals entering our country then it is a two tier system. In this situation, who then decides which laws shall be enforced and which ones shall be ignored. It seems it is left to the arbitrary will of the individual with the most influence to adhere to the dominant ideology of the day. This carries.
The very famous statue depicting Justice with her eyes blindfolded and sword of truth and scales of justice is now a symbol that alludes to favouring one side (the left) to impose ideological benefits. I've heard it described as the 'better tomorrow' that we have been threatened with. The left adore a slogan and this is just another one in a long line.
Therefore we have to consider when public justice fails to be just - at what point is private recourse and justice to be a response? Is it even an attractive method? It can be argued that Findlay has already enacted private justice. In its simplest form, private justice can be as straightforward as the modern phenomenon of being cancelled. Findlay's language certainly sought to ruin the reputation of GOLS during her inflammatory rant.
Most of the left celebrated this attack on GOLS by Findlay as morally just. Why should Findlay live without the consequences of her hate speech and not expect consequences? The left and their IRA supporting activists have gained ground in recent years and now seek to consolidate that power by way of ensuring that any recourse that can be taken by GOLS is either non-existent or minimal. It serves the left perfectly and reduces the chance of justice to the party wronged. This is a primary political and ideological goal. In short people like Findlay have social protection to slander and defame. Institutions like the SFA hide behind the body itself and 'human error' - which of course is what VAR was introduced to eradicate.
Findlay's only claim to fame appears to be involving herself with the extreme left and support for murderous terrorists - what a charmer. The ripped off motto I mentioned earlier has been completely distorted by this egregious individual. For a professor, she has a total ignorance of a moral society. There is no argument being made by Findlay as far as I can discern. It is an incoherent rant of derogatory bile aimed at a specific group and she should face justice for inciting hatred and a good case can be made that hate speech also incites violence. This is repellent. Her ideological unpinning was supposed to have died out in the 1990's during the Good Friday Agreement - why is this dogma allowed to be aired with such gusto and confidence?
As the left now have control of public justice any suggestion of illegitimate behaviour or being not fit for purpose tends to erode confidence and left power, ergo this cannot be allowed to happen.
Wrapped up in this cultural assault is also the recent VAR controversy and the subsequent act of endorsing the individual for another game involving the club that previously benefited from poor decision making, shoddy oversight and (I can say it, Rangers Football Club may err not to) cheating to benefit the favourite football 'club' of Findlay and her IRA adoring acolytes. The pejorative language and acts by influential protagonists in Scotland has a detrimental effect to specific groups, namely GOLS and anyone associated with Rangers Football Club. In this respect the enmity shown has been a resounding success for Findlay and the SFA. The laws of the land and the laws of the game have been hijacked to a degree of illogical gymnastics to suit the agenda of the disingenuous.
These current ruling parasites are very willing to invent class distinctions despite claiming an abhorrence of them. We are being policed harshly on one side to the extent of congenital suspicion. These people are fanatics, not genuinely good cultural assets who comment and work impartially. This is combined with extreme division within groups (religious, cultural and societal) that is also a reflection on even deeper division within a country, such as untrammelled immigration and cover up of Muslim grooming gangs by several local authorities and police forces - which we have never been allowed to come to terms with as a country. All these examples erode the bonds of society that we have historically had. When hate speech is clear and cheating is clear, this is indicative of a rottenness at the core of institutions. In this case, the legal system and the incumbents at the SFA.
The deliberately ill informed, the obtuse and belligerent dismiss concerns, put simply we are not given our due in these matters. If the laws are not applied equally and fairly, then a form of private legal justice should be considered by both GOLS and Rangers FC. If the legal route is closed off, denied or undermined (such as the multi-generational willingness of the Scottish prosecution service to allow Celtic FC to evade justice) then the only conclusion we are left with is that we have a new ruling class in Scotland - the political suzerain.