Spiers and The Herald have a slice of humble pie.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I disagree it is factual. I think only Rangers supporters will think that.

 

 

Where are the facts in that for a neutral? Where is there any facts to prove it. There is none in this statement. This statement is only doing exactly what Spiers did in making unsubstantiated accusations.

Personally I think this is a very poor statement and should have been left alone.

 

The paragraph that you have quoted is utter nonsense because as you say there is not one shred of evidence presented to subtantiate the claims.

 

Who writes this stuff for the RST and do all members of their Board agree with it or is it the work of one man?

 

So what if Celtic fans fund a web site through donations, is there a law against that? So what if their supporters are gullible? So what if they have friendly journalists, if they can't substantiate their stories they will be forced to retract (sic). There are politicians who support Rangers FC and indeed there is or was such a group in Parliament before the last election; I daresay there's a similar Celtic supporting group, so what? "This mob is incensed at the use of any legitimate, legal mechanisms to challenge them", are they really, where is the evidence for that? And who cares if they are, anyway?

 

The final paragraph displays a remarkable ignorance of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. The Government did indeed act but the government does not institute prosecutions in this country, heaven forbid we ever reach that stage.

 

This was a good factual statement with a reasonable conclusion but completely spoiled by the load of crap in the final two paragraphs.

Edited January 31, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[pete 2,499]

The paragraph that you have quoted is utter nonsense because as you say there is not one shred of evidence presented to subtantiate the claims.

 

Who writes this stuff for the RST and do all members of their Board agree with it?

 

So what if Celtic fans fund a web site through donations, is there a law against that? So what if their supporters are gullible? So what if they have friendly journalists, if they can't substantiate their stories they will be forced to retract (sic). There are politicians who support Rangers FC and indeed there is or was such a group in Parliament before the last election; I daresay there's a similar Celtic supporting group, so what? "This mob is incensed at the use of any legitimate, legal mechanisms to challenge them", are they really, where is the evidence for that? And who cares if they are, anyway?

 

This was a decent statement but completely spoiled by that load of crap.

 

I totally agree on that. The statement should have been the first and last paragraph. Someone with a good statement who got carried away and ckufed it up.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I totally agree on that. The statement should have been the first and last paragraph. Someone with a good statement who got carried away and ckufed it up.

 

Any guesses who that might be, Pete?

[pete 2,499]

Any guesses who that might be, Pete?

 

Now you are fishing and I won't get entangled in your dislike of certain people.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Now you are fishing and I won't get entangled in your dislike of certain people.

 

Fair enough, Pete; no doubt plgsarmy can enlighten us.

[craig 5,199]

So disappointing to see our own with such disdain.... For our own.

 

Are you of the belief it was Chris Graham I assume BH ? Your dislike of him is, for lack of better, more positive words.... Unfortunate.

 

Whoever made the statement got some facts correct, but not unlike yourself often enough, got a little carried away with, as you like to put it, "poetic license".

 

The paragraphs based on supposition are a long held view of many, many bears. Based on facts ? Not technically.... But there has been plenty of information which would point to it being accurate.

 

As I said, it is sad when we have such dislike of our own when they are only trying to protect the Club.

[Bearman 9]

You guys might not be interested in the basics so it's no wonder to your reaction from the RST.

 

Meanwhile the hatefest continues and if we keep our mouths shut it will continue more and more.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Bearman

[plgsarmy 111]

Fair enough, Pete; no doubt plgsarmy can enlighten us.

 

Regardless of who wrote it it was approved by the whole Board. I'm happy that there is enough evidence to back up what was said.

[pete 2,499]

You guys might not be interested in the basics so it's no wonder to your reaction from the RST.

 

Meanwhile the hatefest continues and if we keep our mouths shut it will continue more and more.

 

Bearman you are right and I don't disagree with that. Funny enough it is the same as the Zelalem argument. There is a time for attacking forward but also a time for passing back and waiting until you can go for the jugular. Putting out unsubstantiated claims is like a punt up the field and hoping it falls kindly. It mostly doesn't and the ball gets returned just as quick and only creates danger for yourselves.

[Bearman 9]

Regardless of who wrote it it was approved by the whole Board. I'm happy that there is enough evidence to back up what was said.

 

Good on ye plg...thanks for your reply.