When actions speak louder than words

[MacK1950 2,376]

No doubt there are many who attend who have previous convictions and to try to weed them out it is probably impossible.

Only way to be sure of not getting them would be to include a question on season ticket application,but unless convictions are for proven violent behaviour I don't see how they would/could be refused a season ticket.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

No doubt there are many who attend who have previous convictions and to try to weed them out it is probably impossible.

Only way to be sure of not getting them would be to include a question on season ticket application,but unless convictions are for proven violent behaviour I don't see how they would/could be refused a season ticket.

I obviously wouldn't advocate banning everyone with a criminal record because there can be all sorts of mitigating circumstances and people can change. That said, I would suggest anyone who has been convicted 20 times became a lost cause a long time ago.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I don't have any issues in removing someone with 20 convictions from the crowd. He's a liability just waiting to become an embarrassment thrown in our faces.

[ian1964 10,723]

so a guy's got 4 months jail for running on the pitch and challenging rival fans to a fight.

A Rangers supporter. 50 year old guy with 20 previous convictions

I find it hard to sympathise

 

Surely his previous is what gets him jailed?,I don't think any fan should go on the pitch!,all the goading in the world wouldn't result in me wanting to go on the pitch for a fight!

Edited July 30, 2016 by ian1964

[colinstein 294]

Surely his previous is what gets him jailed?,I don't think any fan should go on the pitch!,all the goading in the world would result in me wanting to go on the pitch for a fight!

 

definitely........his previous guaranteed it

[D'Artagnan 173]

The responsibility for adhering to, and complying with bail conditions or additional court orders imposed on an accused person lies with the accused themselves not anyone else. It is not that different from the habitual shoplifter who finds as part of their bail condition, or as often the case these days ASBOs, who are banned from shopping outlets - it is their responsibility to comply with such conditions or orders not to enter those outlets.

 

While we may have different opinions on the rights and wrongs of how this has been handled Id like to highlight a few points :

 

The post match statement from the club raised expectations and I think this has been a factor in how we have viewed this. Perhaps lessons will be learned about the entailment of issuing statements which as Buster and I discussed on some other forums are either not sustainable or which the board find at a later point, for whatever reason they cannot apply a consistency of actions to the content and spirit of previous statements. Failing to do so just causes confusion and the the raising of expectations only to have them scuppered later.

 

I think whatever your opinion we can all be in agreement that the original communication from the club was very, very poor and hopefully in this regard lessons will have been learnt for the future.

 

Finally, it is disappointing to see some intimating an intention to cancel their Club 1872 subscriptions. This is an organisation not even in its infancy & is still at Working Group stage - nonetheless they were still prepared to take the concerns of bears to the club, acting on the information which had been passed to me. So let us not make the mistake that we ourselves have been subjected to for far too long, of hasty and premature judgements - let us at least see a board elected and a constitution established and then make of our judgements once it is properly up and running in its proposed format.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

A lot of whats being discussed as to how people would react to an amount of goading in a that situation is a very subjective issue. I feel it is also influenced in that instance by where you were situated on that day and the circumstances that applied.

Let's remember if Police Scotland had done their job properly and were not now accused of being incompetent by standing and watching all this happen we possibly wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am quite vocal on this as I was so close to it and had a minor with me. On one of my posts yesterday I had indicated that some would feel it justified to challenge someone who they felt was putting their child or a child they were guarding, while at the match, in danger or they felt they may be attacked.

I stand by that, luckily as I have said, I was half way up the stair after the final whistle when we seen thousands swarm onto the pitch from the Hibs end and many jump around the bottom of the main stand where we had been sitting, goading and intimidating disabled and many other Rangers fans.

It's also very hard to paint a picture as the TV companies decided not to show what happened. Believe me if they did everyone would be in no doubt as to the behaviour of Hibs fans in that 5-10 minute period where police Scotland stood back and let all hell break loose.

[JFK-1 1,693]

I would be seriously disappointed if the vast majority of the blame for this embarrassment were not laid at the door of hibs. Their fans illegally entered the pitch in the thousands and if they had not intiated that then there would been ZERO Rangers fans on that pitch.

 

In addition even if they had even stayed in their own area of the pitch the chances are good there would have been no Rangers fans on the pitch. But in their "exuberance" they apparently thought this passed as acceptable behaviour.

 

 

And there are no suggestions of Rangers fans assaulting any of their players nor vandalising the ground such as this.

 

 

 

This thing is a total farce if there is any remote suggestion that there is any equal blame to be apportioned either in terms of offences commited or in terms of what initiated the entire debacle.

[D'Artagnan 173]

A lot of whats being discussed as to how people would react to an amount of goading in a that situation is a very subjective issue. I feel it is also influenced in that instance by where you were situated on that day and the circumstances that applied.

Let's remember if Police Scotland had done their job properly and were not now accused of being incompetent by standing and watching all this happen we possibly wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am quite vocal on this as I was so close to it and had a minor with me. On one of my posts yesterday I had indicated that some would feel it justified to challenge someone who they felt was putting their child or a child they were guarding, while at the match, in danger or they felt they may be attacked.

I stand by that, luckily as I have said, I was half way up the stair after the final whistle when we seen thousands swarm onto the pitch from the Hibs end and many jump around the bottom of the main stand where we had been sitting, goading and intimidating disabled and many other Rangers fans.

It's also very hard to paint a picture as the TV companies decided not to show what happened. Believe me if they did everyone would be in no doubt as to the behaviour of Hibs fans in that 5-10 minute period where police Scotland stood back and let all hell break loose.

 

Wholeheartedly agree with that Coop - same where I was situated - some seem to have forgotten the testimonies of bears, particularly disabled supporters, who were of the opinion that only the pro-active action of some bears saved them from an uncertain fate - as a result of the action of the Hibs supporters and the absence of Police.

 

Thats why I get so angry at Jonny's latest piece - it condemns all our support on the park without any consideration of the various factors involved that day.

Edited July 31, 2016 by D'Artagnan

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The responsibility for adhering to' date=' and complying with bail conditions or additional court orders imposed on an accused person lies with the accused themselves not anyone else. It is not that different from the habitual shoplifter who finds as part of their bail condition, or as often the case these days ASBOs, who are banned from shopping outlets - it is their responsibility to comply with such conditions or orders not to enter those outlets.

 

While we may have different opinions on the rights and wrongs of how this has been handled Id like to highlight a few points :

 

The post match statement from the club raised expectations and I think this has been a factor in how we have viewed this. Perhaps lessons will be learned about the entailment of issuing statements which as Buster and I discussed on some other forums are either not sustainable or which the board find at a later point, for whatever reason they cannot apply a consistency of actions to the content and spirit of previous statements. Failing to do so just causes confusion and the the raising of expectations only to have them scuppered later.

 

I think whatever your opinion we can all be in agreement that the original communication from the club was very, very poor and hopefully in this regard lessons will have been learnt for the future.

 

Finally, it is disappointing to see some intimating an intention to cancel their Club 1872 subscriptions. This is an organisation not even in its infancy & is still at Working Group stage - nonetheless they were still prepared to take the concerns of bears to the club, acting on the information which had been passed to me. So let us not make the mistake that we ourselves have been subjected to for far too long, of hasty and premature judgements - let us at least see a board elected and a constitution established and then make of our judgements once it is properly up and running in its proposed format.[/quote']

Shops often ban known offenders