Pacific Quay Musings?

[Frankie 8,570]

1 minute ago, trublusince1982 said:

It's not illegal to use a VPN to watch sport or Netflix. It is against the user's agreement but that is not a crime and could only result in your access to the product being denied.

 

It is illegal to use a VPN to watch pirated material.

 

It is illegal to use a VPN for material gains IE a pub etc 

 

Circumventing the licencing laws in the UK in reference to the football is only illegal for the person streaming (hosting)not watching.

It's obviously a grey area and the laws are changing fairly regularly with regard to such stuff (usually they're always playing catch-up).

 

As such, I'd recommend people be wary but, with specific regard to RTV, I don't think people have anything to worry about.

[trublusince1982 243]

1 minute ago, DMAA said:

 

 

I haven't researched it but my understanding is that using VPN to access services not available in the UK would be a form of piracy because you're breaching the rights that companies like BT and Sky have paid for.

Only if the material as in hosting where you get it from hasn't paid licencing fees. As rangers have then it's not applicable. You paid for the product you are only breaching the usage agreement. Nothing to do with piracy unless you sell access or use it to create material gain

[Bluedell 5,627]

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

Any Rangers fan who thinks extending press privileges to Chris McLaughlin will result in a change of attitude by the BBC is sadly deluded. 

This is correct. The anti-Rangers sentiment is ingrained in BBC Scotland as an institution.

 

The Vanguard Bears put together a dossier of many, many issues with BBC Scotland around a decade ago, and it's steadily got worse since then.

 

An alcoholic isn't going be cured unless he accepts he has a problem. It's the same with BBC Scotland and they are some way away from the 12 steps.

[DMAA 3,658]

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

Do you honestly think BBC discrimination against Rangers only started with us withdrawing privileges from Chris McLaughlin ... or that it would stop if we returned those privileges? If you do then I truly feel sorry for your blindness.

I addressed that in my first reply to you. It's a change in coverage I want to see. You can't change their attitude. But this stand-off isn't the most productive way to address the problem and another method needs to tried, including regular and rational exposing of bias.

[DMAA 3,658]

5 minutes ago, trublusince1982 said:

Only if the material as in hosting where you get it from hasn't paid licencing fees. As rangers have then it's not applicable. You paid for the product you are only breaching the usage agreement. Nothing to do with piracy unless you sell access or use it to create material gain

 

5 minutes ago, Frankie said:

It's obviously a grey area and the laws are changing fairly regularly with regard to such stuff (usually they're always playing catch-up).

 

As such, I'd recommend people be wary but, with specific regard to RTV, I don't think people have anything to worry about.

Thanks, that clears things up. It's difficult for a layman to know where the red line is with digital stuff and I didn't want to get caught on the wrong side of the law because of football.

[Bill 13,717]

Just now, DMAA said:

I addressed that in my first reply to you. It's a change in coverage I want to see. You can't change their attitude. But this stand-off isn't the most productive way to address the problem and another method needs to tried, including regular and rational exposing of bias.

So what do you suggest doing that no one else has been able to come up with? Other than engaging a consultant wizard and using magic?

 

If I understand you, you want to have BBC coverage but accept that it will be dripping with anti-Rangers sentiment. Good luck selling that idea.

[buster. 5,199]

'Boxing clever' is an oft used term and it's one that I don't think you can apply to a lot of dealings with the media.

 

As per much of the executive management of the club these past few years, it's been reactionary with a base in popularism.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's a big improvement on the pre March 2015 'spiv model' of serving the interests of others but from my view, we've lacked a holistic strategy that underpins the base from which decisions are taken.

 

 

Wrt Chris McLaughlin, IIRC the story goes that it was Jim Traynor who literally showed him the door at Ibrox one Saturday afternoon (2015?) and the withdrawal of press privilages for the individual soon followed. In view of that, BBC Scotland then announced their refusal to send journalists to cover anything at Ibrox/Auchenhwie/with Rangers players/manager.

 

The problem I had with this was that the background reasons as to why Chris McLaughlin put himself in the position to have press privilages withdrawn was never told or explained to the watching world. Instead, a vacum is formed that allows the BBC to stand by their man, be dismissive of the club for it's act and allow a general belief to form that it was Rangers who have banned BBC Scotland.

 

Instead of the bombastic Traynor approach, I think we needed to indirectly get the story of how Chris McLaughlin operated during the spiv years and outwith out to the public. I think there was sufficient material that showed him being repeatedly used by Jack Irvine, not only in getting information out but more importantly, adding a slant which the majority of listeners/readers will take as read.

 

ie. we needed to discredit McLaughlin and put indirect pressure on BBC Scotland not to send him to cover Rangers.

 

 

At a time when we need to develop future generations of Rangers supporters, we need to be comprehensively covered by BBC Scotland and not be involved in the current 'situation'.

 

Given where we are, it now appears difficult to find a solution.

Petitions from License fee paying Rangers supporters sent to the Director General of the BBC may help put the club in a slightly stronger position wrt to sitting down and finding a solution to this. The Status Quo serves for little and damages the club.

 

Beyond that we need, as I don't tire of pronouncing.........a holistic stratgy to base decisions on rather than continuous reactions that go down dead ends and tend to cost money.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by buster.

[DMAA 3,658]

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

If I understand you, you want to have BBC coverage but accept that it will be dripping with anti-Rangers sentiment

Surely nobody is alleging that literally all their coverage of us is "dripping with anti-Rangers sentiment"? I've listened to who knows how many Rangers games over the radio over the years and have very rarely had an issue with any of it. After all 99% of it is live coverage of facts with no opinion.

 

It's not true that every single BBC employee is anti-Rangers. I'm pretty sure most Celtic fans would allege Chick Young is anti-Celtic.

Edited August 14, 2018 by DMAA

[Bill 13,717]

1 minute ago, DMAA said:

Surely nobody is alleging that literally all their coverage of us is "dripping with anti-Rangers" sentiment? I've listened to who knows how many Rangers games over the radio over the years and have very rarely had an issue with any of it. After all 99% of it is live coverage of facts with no opinion.

 

 It's not true that every single BBC employee is anti-Rangers. I'm pretty sure most Celtic fans would allege Chick Young is anti-Celtic.

Perhaps this will come as a surprise but I've no interest what Celtic fans think. We don't need the BBC. Buster raises a valid point above about developing future generations of Rangers fans but I think that will be more affected by winning trophies on the park and taking responsibility ourselves for promoting brand Rangers.

[Dave M609 100]

Do the people at the top of the BBC in Scotland have to answer to the top brass in the BBC or are they considered separate entities