Blue Moon 1,346 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Does anyone think the people running Astra Zeneca and or Pfizer are going to sue people who have been e-mailing them about the recent proposed merger, stating their dissatsfaction ?? We need to get a sense of reality here. This is just Irvine 'trying it on' again I have a perfectly good sense of reality and of what is reasonable behavior. I've made my point. Let's move on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It depends on who you classify the sender is. There's a strong argument that the sender is SoS and therefor them sending a couple of emails is reasonable, but if they send 1,000s that say the same thing word for word then it's not holding them to account and would fall into another area. But it wasn't the SoS sending the e-mails. The petition would seem to have been the intiative of the SoS but thereafter it was other individuals who 'signed' the petition (that indicated that GW and SE would receive e-mails) and when those individuals clicked on 'sign' it was they who were instructing the communications be sent. The SoS whose membership is I believe two would therefore be capable of sending two e-mails to both GW and SE. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 But you could not reasonably argue that SoS were the senders any more than you can argue that the Post Office is the sender of every bit of junk mail you receive. There's a huge difference. If I generate an email or send a letter then I send it. If sign an on-line petition and have no idea that it generates an email then who are the senders? How can I send something that I know nothing about? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 But it wasn't the SoS sending the e-mails. The petition would seem to have been the intiative of the SoS but thereafter it was other individuals who 'signed' the petition (that indicated that GW and SE would receive e-mails) and when those individuals clicked on 'sign' it was they who were instructing the communications be sent. The SoS whose membership is I believe two would therefore be capable of sending two e-mails to both GW and SE. The petition did not state that emails would be sent, and I did not instruct any emails to be sent and was wholly unaware of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The petition did not state that emails would be sent, and I did not instruct any emails to be sent and was wholly unaware of it. I used the term 'indicated' that e-mails would be sent. See the link/petition http://www.change.org/petitions/graham-wallace-give-written-legally-binding-assurances-to-fans-that-ibrox-stadium-will-not-be-sold-or-used-as-security-for-any-loans?recruiter=83833912&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition It could be equally argued that had the signer of the petition examined content that at the very least, they would see the 'indication' and have opportunity to contemplate the possibility. Thereafter you go to 'petition precedent' regards similar. You also have to take into account that the petition has been conducted via change.org and their experience in such matters may or should help petition intiatators stay within certain guidelines/the law. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The petition did not state that emails would be sent, and I did not instruct any emails to be sent and was wholly unaware of it. "Every time someone signs your petition, an email is sent to the decision maker. Here are some ways to find your decision maker's contact information:......" Taken from the Change.org website. Always read the small print! ;-) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) "Every time someone signs your petition, an email is sent to the decision maker. Here are some ways to find your decision maker's contact information:......" Taken from the Change.org website. Always read the small print! ;-) So you have the small print of petition provider and importantly the 'indication' that this would happen within the particular petition's communication. - You have a sender with a connection to the receiver....(supporter/customer/shareholder) - A sender who seeks no commercial gain - A sender with a genuine and material concern reflected in communication (e-mails). - A receiver (PLC / football club) who may be having corporate goverence issues wrt informing markets/shareholders of relevant information in a timely way. - Office bearers (e-mail recipients) who engaged with fans on such matters then didn't phone them back as apparently promised but instead issued a disengenuous statement 4 days later. I get the feeling that this threat will go the way of the others. The important thing to not lose sight of is the material of the petition and surrounding issues. Edited May 21, 2014 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It was set up to email easdale and Wallace everytime it was signed. I'm delighted they are feeling the pressure. If that's the case then I think it's a really stupid thing to do; a petition is one thing, deliberately spamming email is just harassment and takes away from the petition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 "Every time someone signs your petition, an email is sent to the decision maker. Here are some ways to find your decision maker's contact information:......" Taken from the Change.org website. Always read the small print! ;-) Just one of the reasons I signed it. The thought of SE and Wallace's inbox being hit en masse was attractive to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,429 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I dont normally do petitions and such like, but seeing the uproar this has caused, I have just signed it. Hope there is room in Easdales inbox for the confirmation email!! I also commented that as custodians of our great club, they should respect our property as ours, not theirs. 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.