BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Yes it is IIRC. However, the road (closed for game) and the opposite pavement are not. So do Rangers maintain the pavement on the stadium side? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 So do Rangers maintain the pavement on the stadium side? If they own it, I assume they do. But they may pay GCC a retainer to maintain it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 If they own it, I assume they do. But they may pay GCC a retainer to maintain it. I'll bow to your knowledge of the ownership but I find it very difficult to believe that Rangers own the public footpath outside the stadium, any more than I own the bit of pavement outside my house. The Police may effectively grant them sole use of the section outside the main door for example on match days but that's quite another matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Whilst I don't know who said what about whom, and if this is simply a case of the Club spending money or rather causing public money to spent to silence a legitimate critic then I agree that that is out of order; isn't this a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? Doesn't FF have a long record of banning individuals and deleting comments that it considers critical of its point of view and those of its supporters? I have often disagreed with the 'party line' on FF and never been banned. It is not so much what you say but how you say it that gets people banned. Like it or not, FF is the largest and most influential of our online forums and Chris Graham is a capable and influential blogger. By going after FF and Chris, the club are, in my opinion, deliberately trying to silence dissenting voices and disrupt any organised opposition in the run-up to the AGM. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I'll bow to your knowledge of the ownership but I find it very difficult to believe that Rangers own the public footpath outside the stadium, any more than I own the bit of pavement outside my house. The Police may effectively grant them sole use of the section outside the main door for example on match days but that's quite another matter. I remember handing out leaflets several years ago and was asked to move on by the police as I was on private property. In any case, we're going off on a tangent now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I have often disagreed with the 'party line' on FF and never been banned. It is not so much what you say but how you say it that gets people banned. Like it or not, FF is the largest and most influential of our online forums and Chris Graham is a capable and influential blogger. By going after FF and Chris, the club are, in my opinion, deliberately trying to silence dissenting voices and disrupt any organised opposition in the run-up to the AGM. Got it in one. A poor effort to discredit any groundswell of protest. A dirty trick - make no mistake. But, I also suspect, a futile and counter-productive one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Apparently there's two separate issues here: A threatening comment or comments towards a club director by some roaster or other and a separate threat of legal action against Chris Graham. Could Chris Graham have been asked to remove one of his articles like the one he published on TRS about the Easdale share mystery and threatened with legal action if he didn't remove it, like Leggo was or this something completely different? If it's his Easdale share mystery article, then the forums would be likely to get asked to remove it too just like what happened on Monday with the Leggo article about the Serious Fraud Office from Friday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 I remember handing out leaflets several years ago and was asked to move on by the police as I was on private property. In any case, we're going off on a tangent now. Might have depended on what was in the leaflets! Would that be at right angles? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted September 27, 2013 Share Posted September 27, 2013 Apparently there's two separate issues here: A threatening comment or comments towards a club director and a separate threat of legal action against Chris Graham. Could Chris Graham have been asked to remove one of his articles like the one he published on TRS about the Easdale share mystery and threatened with legal action if he didn't remove it, like Leggo was or this something completely different? If it's his Easdale share mystery article, then the forums would be likely to get asked to remove it too just like what happened on Monday with the Leggo article about the Serious Fraud Office from Friday. TRS have not been asked to remove anything. Not that I know of anyway... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 27, 2013 Author Share Posted September 27, 2013 Got it in one. A poor effort to discredit any groundswell of protest. A dirty trick - make no mistake. But, I also suspect, a futile and counter-productive one. Can't believe that's all it's about. Surely they will know how it will go down, it just makes things worse for them. You said yourself don't underestimate Jack Irvine. 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.