ian1964 10,870 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BRIANMC1 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Must admit I wondered about this also 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 One thing I would say.. Traynor, in my opinion, is just as bad as Speirs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The answer is obvious. The BBC directly attacked Whyte. They have directly made allegations about him, claiming to have evidence which supports them. When they made Ally look like someone who condoned and laughed at sectarianism, did we ban them then? No, we got an apology and that was enough. But now it's Whyte himself that's the focus of all this, the BBC get banned immediately. Because smearing Ally apparently is less important to Rangers than smearing Whyte. My point? Spiers hasn't directly attacked Whyte. Not yet. He's gone on about the club for a long time, including SDM - but hasn't sharpened his razors in Whyte's direction. And until he does, he can say anything he likes about Rangers - and in fact has done since the BBC ban. To cut a rambling post short, Whyte doesn't like being the target. He seems to have less of an issue of the club itself being the target. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,123 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Danny, not sure I agree. By attacking Whyte, and making accusations of "criminality", they are damaging Rangers too. If Whyte believes this is maliccious (which he indicates, he does), then I can't see how the club and Whyte can be separated. Plus, in times of uncertainty, it is important that we act as one. And let's not forget that this stuff has been going on un-checked for some time. And there's a world of difference between some (almost) anonymous bloggers creating cult followings through speculation and innuendo, and a state funded broadcaster indulging it all too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Then why didn't we sue after all these (alleged) previous instances of insults, inconsistencies and accusations in the past? There's plenty fuel (not just in the BBC) for our club to sue - but it's never happened until Craig Whyte himself was attacked. Not the club, Craig Whyte. There was very little in that documentary which attacked the club, if anything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,123 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Good question. My only guess is that onine bloggers can speculate till the cows come home without ever really being taken seriously. There is/was plenty of chat about the likes of Scotzine, Phill Mctwelvenames, et al; being threatened with legal action. Did scotzine not take down an article based on one such threat? But when a state funded broadcaster steps in and indulges it, I would argue that changes the game entirely. The real question I think is whether Whyte is actually instigating proceedings via Messrs Carter-Fuck (sic), or whether this is a news management ploy to tide him over until the outcome of the tax case is known. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 OC came out last night on Clyde and blatantly said Whyte has no money, OC knows this. If that's not an attack I don't know what is, of course he wouldn't or couldn't say how he knows. Whyte gave the bbc the chance to apologise for the Ally slur or else the lawyers were getting involved they apologised. He gave the bbc the chance not to run with the hatchet job or else, they ignored him so out come the lawyers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 One thing I would say.. Traynor, in my opinion, is just as bad as Speirs. I can't agree with that Ergatrude. Jim Traynor says bad things about everyone, and the SFA in particular, but he is the only one that I've read lately, and I don't read everyone, that has rubbished the septic team and lemons view that they are world class. He did write some speculative stuff about us going out of buisness pre-CW takeover, but he's not nearly as bad as Speirs, not by a long shot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I can't agree with that Ergatrude. Jim Traynor says bad things about everyone, and the SFA in particular, but he is the only one that I've read lately, and I don't read everyone, that has rubbished the septic team and lemons view that they are world class. He did write some speculative stuff about us going out of buisness pre-CW takeover, but he's not nearly as bad as Speirs, not by a long shot. Tend to agree Dutchy he talks pish about everybody, but he was pushing the 25 point deduction at the weekend that everybody knows is crap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.