Mick Mac

A five-year-old Celtic fan rang the club to apologise for missing a game after it clashed with a friend's birthday party. Louis Kayes, from Moodiesburn in North Lanarkshire, called the club to tell them he was sorry he had not made it to Saturday's game against Motherwell. The boy's mother, 35-year-old Lisa Kayes, said he had borrowed her phone to make the call. She told the BBC her son had called after a "bit of a guilt trip". Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Kaye Adams programme, she said: "He was in the living room with my phone and then I heard the voicemail message from Celtic Park saying 'thank you for calling'." Ms Kayes said Louis wanted to speak to the club's manager, Brendan Rodgers, and his favourite player, Celtic captain Scott Brown, to apologise and explain his absence.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a local example, Dulwich is a public school, > whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools, You made the definitive statement above - I wanted to understand what you meant by it - it turns out you feel its all so subjective and meaningless. I do wonder why you made such a clear statement in the first place. I was genuinely interested that there may be a difference, but there isn't.

I don't think there is any difference. Dulwich College and Alleyns are both public schools. They were originally the same school - One was the upper school and the other was the lower school. I think you have made up your own classification.

What is your definition of a private school then? Why is Alleys private and Dulwich College public in your opinion?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a local example, Dulwich is a public school, > whereas JAGs and Alleyn's are private schools, but > they all have charitable status and are all, I > believe, "not for profit". Public schools emerged from charity schools established to educate poor scholars, the term "public" being used to indicate that access to them was not restricted on the basis of religion, occupation, or home location, and that they were subject to public management or control,[1] in contrast to private schools which were run for the personal profit of the proprietors.[2]

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick, why do you always have to be so aggressive > and rude towards me? I'm teasing. However - I'm not so keen on how you open your responses to other people - "that's not true" or "that's not quite right / the case / the whole truth" comes across as you are the oracle ready to be there to educate us all. It makes me want to take up the challenge and debate - sorry if it's come across as rude. IMO its ok to say you disagree with someone - but to say someone else is wrong, or that there post is not true, can come across a bit teacher/pupil. Although I've probably done it myself a few times.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick, I totally agree that the fee paying students > are more a 'not for profit' activity conceptually > rather than charitable work per se. Ok good - I consider I have educated you on this point. I'm not even going to send you a school fee. It's on the house/state.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .... after all, how much would one really save > moving to an expensive area, next to a great > school, compared to private school fees? I agree > it amounts to much the same thing, but doubt it's > actually that common. It's extremely common.

LM The Dulwich Estate is a charity for the poor - to use layman's language. I'd say the schools are the "medium" whereby the Estate provides its charitable work via assisting in the bursaries. The schools themselves may provide limited charitable service themselves and as such I view them as not for profit - there is current pressure on the schools to do more locally. The opening line of my previous post was to differentiate between private schooling of the day and the original Dulwich public school - being run not for profit. Private schools are run for private profit, Public schools (the Dulwich schools) are not.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's not true. The charitable trust (i.e. the > endowment) was left to educate poor scholars. > Alleyn's and the other Dulwich schools do that via > the bursaries. And yes, there are children on > full or near full bursaries at these schools and > to qualify for these bursaries which are need > based your income levels are no where near middle > class. Around a 3rd of children at Alleyn's are > on some type of income support and the school is > in the process of raising an additional perpetual > endowment for an additional 12 full bursaries to > extend their charitable mission. > > If you are really interested, all the information > about the bursaries and qualification levels and > how much the school is administering can be found > online. But all the money that the Dulwich Trust > earns in rent etc from investing its original > endowment is used to provide need based bursaries > at all 3 schools it supports. > > If you are against private education as a point of > principle you won't care but its wrong to suggest > they aren't fulfilling their charitable purpose. > > > Mick Mac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > if you go back far enough education was > provided > > by private tutor arrangements in the home of > > wealthy families > > > > 17th century - Edward Alleyn Gods Gift ... > > provided public schooling - this was seen as > > charitable at the time as he gave up of his own > > money. > > > > I'd imagine the charitable status has been in > > place since then - it's not a charity for the > > poor, more of a not for profit, although the > > schools do have to provide bursaries etc to > those > > who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting > > their current day charitable obligations to a > > certain extent that way. You do make me laugh LM. Which bit isn't true? I find it hard to see where the direction of your post differs from mine. My post was about the origination and development of charitable status. From what you have said you might as well say you agree with me. And I find it hard to see where anyone might draw the conclusion that I may be against private education. Where on earth do you get that from?

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't need to help the poor to be a charity in > the legal sense. Again, people are conflating the > common usage of "charity" with a legal charity. Who are these "people" you talk about?

if you go back far enough education was provided by private tutor arrangements in the home of wealthy families 17th century - Edward Alleyn Gods Gift ... provided public schooling - this was seen as charitable at the time as he gave up of his own money. I'd imagine the charitable status has been in place since then - it's not a charity for the poor, more of a not for profit, although the schools do have to provide bursaries etc to those who cant pay fees, presumably therefore meeting their current day charitable obligations to a certain extent that way.

Foxy is a pensioner And as I see with my father in law - as one's capacity to earn more money is gone and your income is no longer increasing (other than perhaps a pension being indexed linked to a low inflation level) it seems that its difficult to understand current pricing, when compared to monthly income. I fully understand this.

Legally - for the purposes of this case - she consented. End of.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The media seem to have made up their mind (as do > most on here) about the facts regardless of the > judge's verdict. The fact is, it's not rape. To say anything else is now potentially slander or something of that sort....

Her father is wealthy apparently so its not about money for her. Maybe she considers this a one off mistake on his part. However unlikely that may be.

And I think that's the trouble - media jump to conclusions too early. As did the football clubs etc. I do find it surprising that his fiancee has stood by him though - as although he's not a rapist, he is a low moral case who treated a woman like a notch on a bedpost and no doubt took advantage of her in a situation that was just a bucket list option for him and his mate. All pretty disturbing.

I went to the Comedy Store recently and was surprised that a strong majority of the audience were in the 40+ age bracket. It made me think that the comedy purple patch of the 80/90s dragged its audience with it and it possibly hasn't been popular with younger age groups.

JohnL Wrote: ---------------------------- > let off - I just said yes and so should that girl to be > honest). Not really - it was important that it was tested and evidenced that she wasn't raped - so they weren't let off with anything What was perhaps wrong here is that there seemed to be an assumption by police that because she was too drunk to remember that it was therefore rape. This was tested and found not to be the case which is also important. And because she said she couldn't remember she then obviously couldn't then give evidence about something she couldn't remember, hence other testimonies were necessary to be taken into consideration about other times when she had drunken sex in an attempt to evidence whether the conduct claimed by the defendants was consistent.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------ > Erm, except the case wasn't written about the > case. Semantics - but having read your OP on this thread you might want to read the case itself. It's definitely interesting and the core details of the case are a better insight than anv second hand opinion I'd have thought.

Good point. Don't know.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the best thing I've seen written on it. > > https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths > -busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ The best thing written about the case is the case itself.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A verdict of not guilty doesn't mean he is > innocent. It just means that there was not > sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond > reasonable doubt. > > "Drunken consent" is not consent if the person > lacks capacity. > > There are a whole heap of things that concern me > about this case, including the inferences that > were allowed to be drawn from the similarity of > language that was clearly uttered after > penetration and therefore after the point where he > was obliged to obtain her consent. However, the > thing that bothers me the most though is the > incorrect assertions that are now being made by > lay people as to the law where rape is concerned. I wonder how many people making comments have read the full decision from ianr's post above. Having read it all I think it's the right decision. Drunken consent is still consent. Xs ability to consent and instigate and control sexual activity when drunk was examined by reference to accounts from other sexual partners The similarities between her activity with other partners was seen as support for the evidence given by the defendant Failure to remember likewise does not mean X did not consent. This was examined closely in this case by reference to other relationships. There were other times when she instigated sexual activity and failed to remember the following day. Information gathered at the initial case later was agreed to be relevant and admissible and there were further statements made after the first hearing that were thought to be relevant by the court.

Other sexual activity is only included if it meets a high relevance criteria. There is no change to the law as a result of this case He is not guilty. That means exactly that Drunken consent is still consent This girl called the police to report her lost handbag. The police asked her how she lost it and suggested she may have a case for rape against the two people. Both have been found not guilty. He seems like a very disrespectful person but it seems that's as far as it goes. Unless of course you believe the judge and jury came to the wrong conclusion, but the law is there to make decisions. The female judge I believe made the decision to include her sexual behaviour (post event behaviour in this case) as relevant.

This is a very interesting case. And quite exceptional it seems. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/14/campaigners-fear-evans-case-will-stop-women-reporting However, the defence can get such testimony heard ? and thus open the alleged victim up to potentially hugely intrusive and upsetting questioning ? if the crucial issue is consent and the behaviour the witnesses claim is so similar to how a complainant is said to have acted during an alleged offence that it cannot reasonably be explained as coincidence.