Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Gonzo79 15,294]

30 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

This. In a nurshell

We bow to your political and football superiority.*

 

But alas Rangers will continue to be attacked by certain parties whilst we do so.

 

 

*Only joking.

[Walterbear 557]

Quite a few Rangers fans I know do not belong to the SNP but they do want a looser relationship with a Westminster govt (of whatever colour) because they believe that Scotland has been let down by Labour and Tory on more serious issues than football. The SNP seems the only vehicle to get more control. The behaviour of some within the SNP needs exsmined however as it is clear the trust has gone from a large number of people in this example. 

 

I dont think for one minute Labour running Glasgow will see pro Rangers or even handed behaviour (just look at the land favours they gave Celtic) but if any politician of any colour is harming my club for reasons of bias I want them exposed. If the SNP politicise the Rangers support in Glasgow against them I suspect they will pay a heavy price. That doesn’t mean they should be seen to be bullied by Rangers but it does mean they need to respond in a far more measured way than Aitken and they need to demonstrate no bias has been applied by McDonald and Dornan in the fan zone situation.

 

What they don’t seem to understand is that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate fairness, it’s not on us to demonstrate bias - we vote them in or out depending on our perception and nothing more. 

 

 

 

[Darthter 542]

18 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

Quite a few Rangers fans I know do not belong to the SNP but they do want a looser relationship with a Westminster govt (of whatever colour) because they believe that Scotland has been let down by Labour and Tory on more serious issues than football. The SNP seems the only vehicle to get more control. The behaviour of some within the SNP needs exsmined however as it is clear the trust has gone from a large number of people in this example. 

 

I dont think for one minute Labour running Glasgow will see pro Rangers or even handed behaviour (just look at the land favours they gave Celtic) but if any politician of any colour is harming my club for reasons of bias I want them exposed. If the SNP politicise the Rangers support in Glasgow against them I suspect they will pay a heavy price. That doesn’t mean they should be seen to be bullied by Rangers but it does mean they need to respond in a far more measured way than Aitken and they need to demonstrate no bias has been applied by McDonald and Dornan in the fan zone situation.

 

What they don’t seem to understand is that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate fairness, it’s not on us to demonstrate bias - we vote them in or out depending on our perception and nothing more. 

 

 

 

acutally...it kinda is.  It is The club, Club1872 & the supporters that are making the accusation of bias.  The councillors simply need to show that they followed procedure.

If you make an accusation against anyone, in any situation, you are required to provide the proof.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

47 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

We bow to your political and football superiority.*

 

But alas Rangers will continue to be attacked by certain parties whilst we do so.

 

 

*Only joking.

Fair doos but I've never gone into any voting booth and assessed my options though a filter based on my football allegiance. 

[Gonzo79 15,294]

6 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

Fair doos but I've never gone into any voting booth and assessed my options though a filter based on my football allegiance. 

Neither have I.

 

For some of us though, the two things (Unionism and Rangers) are in alignment.  

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Neither have I.

 

For some of us though, the two things (Unionism and Rangers) are in alignment.  

You can only support both Rangers and Scottish independence by re-inventing Rangers as something other than the unionist club it long has been. To do this you have to ignore decades of evidence and pretend that "your" Rangers is somehow different. In this dreamworld of fiction and invention that you can align your support for Rangers with all kinds of other shit rattling round inside your head. Luckily it doesn't affect anything in the real world.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

7 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Neither have I.

 

For some of us though, the two things (Unionism and Rangers) are in alignment.  

Good luck to them as they are more than entitled to their view. Just don't label fellow fans with divisive and loaded monikers for taking different view. 

[Bluedell 5,626]

1 hour ago, Darthter said:

Also, I don't let my political views dictate which football team I want to support ( and vice versa)....something which is very clearly NOT the case with many on here.

So who does that?

[Bluedell 5,626]

37 minutes ago, Darthter said:

 The councillors simply need to show that they followed procedure.

 

So if procedure is followed they can't be biased? What a naive view.

[Darthter 542]

3 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

So if procedure is followed they can't be biased? What a naive view.

If correct procedure is followed....how do you prove that personal bias was involved...