D'Artagnan
-
Posts
1,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by D'Artagnan
-
They have made them available to their members FS.
-
You may call it poor Bluedell but its been well documented in politics that negative campaigning turns people off those engaging in such. Whilst you obviously dont consider Leggat worthy of mention (which in itself tells its own story) - plenty of the requistioners supporters do - there has been considerable promotion of his blogs by their supporters. Some of the claims he has made in those blogs have been outrageous as well as false. For people who realise at some point they will have to jump off the fence to cast their vote - seeing a faction promoting such material reeks of desperation. I honestly think the promotion of his blogs by the requisitioners supporters have done them far more harm than good.
-
I think the point being missed Zap is neither Frankie or I have adopted that position through choice - but because we have not been convinced by either sides arguments. Like yourself I was against Green early doors and took considerable criticism for articles which were less than favourable to him but thats life - Ive learned an incredibly thick skin is required if you put yourself up as a blogger. Sometimes you call it right sometimes you cal it wrong. What I have learned from this latest episode of fence sitting is that both sides have been capable of unedifying behaviour not worthy of our club, and that either side will engage in desperate measures if they feel it will further their cause. However, I have been particularly impressed with Jim McColl throughout this whole affair, both his manner, his conduct and the statements he has made. I personally know member's of Jim McColl's family and know he is genuine in his love and concern for the club - despite some of the nonsense which has been printed. But JM has stated the new appointees should be given a chance and speaks very highly of Graham Wallace. He would also appear to respect the judgement of Colin Kingsnorth who of course has pledged support for the current board. So for those reasons Im going to continue with my status quo - rather than start shouting for the removal of people based on rumour, innuendo or deliberate smear. I hope however come to 2015, freed from his current obligations, JM will seek to involve himself with our club again in some capacity.
-
Does that make Jim McColl a collaborator or a requisitioner ?
-
Both Frankie and I have been particularly consistent throughout this whole debacle, and very much of similar mind. At a time when the Rangers support needed information to make responsible choices - much of the time we were fed misinformation by both camps. I honestly dont think either camp can claim the moral high ground. Considerable damage has been done as a consequence of some of the lies and inaccuracies contained in some of those blogs - and I hate to think how that will affect our ability in the future to unite as a support and face the many challenges ahead.
-
I think the conduct and behaviour by the requisitoners has made that difficult bossy - and I appreciate you think it is not constructive to mention Leggat - but its hard to discount when its being promoted so strongly by the requisitoners. I spoken to and read quite a few bears who were swayed not by the board, who they eventually sided with, but by the conduct and behaviour of some of the requisitioners. Even on here, which I would class as a fairly level headed forum - many of the accusations against the board are unsubstantiated and little more than smear. What is really interesting is that on Do The Bouncy they appear capable of discussing the boardroom without insults or falling out with each other - nor does boardroom discussion dominate their forums as it does others.
-
I take it you dont do Twitter then ?? :laugh2:
-
A lot of sense in that bossy. I would point out however the club have engaged with some of the support - just not the ones who keep screaming "spivs" and other not so nice statements at them.
-
My "problem" and anger with this Zap is that some of the requistioners supporters are still promoting this guys blogs. If we are to speak about standards and constitutions etc with any earnest or integrity then we have to start displaying it first amongst ourselves.
-
Its certainly not what I would have written AMMS - but you know what an anorak I am over words. But I think the reaction to it is totally OTT - and I suspect its being used to further another agenda by some.
-
Thats a great article FS. But nothing to do with the double standards operating here unfortunately.
-
I guess Zap it depends how you view this. The person in question (who Frankie probably knows as well) received threats as a consequence of Leggat's less than discrete exposure.
-
PS David Somer is not the first to use the terminology "bogeyman" http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rebel-paul-murray-wants-know-2786527
-
Id say it works both ways AMMS - and some of the stuff by the requisitoners and their supporters has been truly unedifying. The revealing of personal details of fellow bears took it to an all time low.
-
Thats it in a nutshell Cal -albeit its the Telegraph
-
The consequence... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-football/10499198/Financial-gulf-grows-between-Old-Firm-rivals-Celtic-and-Rangers-with-clubs-share-prices-facing-contrasting-fortunes.html The truth http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2250854/Charles-Green-pledges-Ally-McCoist-10m-spend-Rangers-flotation-LSE.html The source http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/what-happened-to-25m-war-chest.html
-
Be nice if Britney himself operated to this standard.
-
Well Ive got my tin hat on so please feel free to append your comments tot he foregoing.... I have to say Im surprised by the reaction in some quarters as a consequence of the Sons Of Struth's change of focus. Their streamlining of the object of their protest to Brian Stockbridge and Jack Irvine seemed to me, to reflect the feelings of most fans, as neither Stockbridge or Irvine were ever likely to be on many bears Christmas Card list. I checked with the Sons of Struth this morning via twitter and they confirmed the target of their boycott is Brian Stockbridge and Jack irvine. Furthermore it is a boycott of club merchandise not matches. Many of us who may not have been convinced that entire boards needed replacing should be much more comfortable with the targets now in the crosshairs. I dont think Brian Stockbridge can escape criticism - why the hell does a financial director feel he is justified a 300K bonus for sporting achievements on the park ? Our financial performance in the last few months has been utterly diabolical - thats what an FD should be judged on - not sporting achievement on the park. The removal of Jack Irvine from our club should be a source of complete unity amongst our support. The word “boycott” of course does not sit easily with many in our support. But as I wrote recently in WATP magazine the new age of militancy amongst our support has been born and there is no turning back the clock. A support who are both disempowered and disenfranchised from the decision making processes have no other option to influence the moneymen than to withhold our custom in order for them to sit up and take notice. I accept militancy is not pretty, in fact it is pretty downright ugly, but its certainly far more ascetically pleasing than apathy. The sooner we have effective fans representation on the board the better.
-
I think it underlines our complete and total disempowerment Frankie - there is no other effective means, imo, to effect change other than to withhold custom. Its a consequence of paying fans nothing more than lip service over the years that they have little or no other means of expressing discontent with the way our club has been run. Im actually surprised that the SOS have received so much negative feedback for their latest initiative - to me the removal of BS and TJ from our board has been the most justifiable and substantive of the recent SOS campaigns in that there has been plenty of evidence of failings/wrongdoing by both.
-
Neither BS nor TJ are on my Christmas Card list...but have we even established a crime has been committed yet ? One party has alleged they have reported a matter - the club have denied any such contact from an investigative body. So either the matter reported did not constitute a crime, or the investigative agency are still investigating the initial report, or the club statement is a lie.
-
Im not trying to trip you up here GS, Im just trying to provide some clarification - those sort of powers are available to Scottish officers making cross border investigations and vice versa. The jurisdiction question is answered in the part about "What arrangements need to be to make enquiries". The locus of the original crime is the decisive factor. What Im saying is that if the crime has occurred in Scotland then even if its reported to the SFO it will be passed to a Scottish Unit or Police Force for enquiry. If its England then if they investigate, the crime will be prosecuted in England via the CPS not the Procurator Fiscal Service.
-
Well you keep believing that if it makes you feel better. But best not to read the parts under "Why is this topic important" and "Who can help me in Scotland" The very fact it emphasises the need for liaison with Crown Office, Local Police Forces should tell you all you need to know.
-
No-one I think you will find I have covered both possibilities.
-
I think you should read that more closely. You will actually find it refers to what i have been telling you - its why their own website tells you they have no jurisdiction in Scotland.
-
You are really not getting this GS are you ? They dont have any jurisdiction to investigate crime in Scotland. End of. England and Scotland are governed by different laws. They will not be reporting anything to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of a prosecution - I can guarantee it. If a crime has occurred and the locus of that crime is in England then they will have jurisdiction to investigate - but it will be reported to the CPS not the Procurator Fiscal or Crown Office. If the crime locus is Scotland then it will not be the SFO who undertake the investigation.