Club1872 on bans

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There's an opt-out on the renewal form. If you didn't opt-out they will have had your consent to sell your details.

Will take your word for that, probably why some countries outlaw require you to opt-in.

[The Beast 9,226]

Just now, siddiqi_drinker said:

Will take your word for that, probably why some countries outlaw require you to opt-in.

There's very clear guidelines from the UK government about "informed consent". I'm unclear how informed the majority of Rangers fans are to their data being shared and who is privy to that data once it is shared. I would not want the likes of the gimp houston within a mile of my personal data.

[gmcf 34,201]

17 minutes ago, The Beast said:

British (Scots and English) and international law operates on the basis of Presumption of Innocence: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. 

In law no-one is found innocent but not-guilty (or in Scotland also not-proven). Innocence should always be assumed and the burden of proof is always on the accusing party.

Yep , I've said before Rangers haven't handled this well at all . 

I was commenting more re C1872 announcement , where they seemed quite pleased with their ' result ' . It was a bit underwhelming imo . 

[thebooler 4,509]

2 hours ago, siddiqi_drinker said:

Yes, thanks for your feedback, because companies sell on data does not make it legal.  If I received unsolicited emails or snail-mail from C1872, I would be writing them seeking larification of how my details were obtained.  I'd also be dropping the club a letter seeking a verification of their policies on Data Privacy.

The problem is not the fact that there have been any breaches of the DPA. The problem is that the emails are from club1872, and there are far too many supporters not interested due to how it's been done, and by whom.

So I don't think there's any point complaining about the DPA if your real reason is that it's club1872 that sent the emails.

For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% and I've heard about a couple of oeople who did tick the box but still received the email.

They're going to enquire about it.

[The Beast 9,226]

2 hours ago, Louden_Greg said:

I would wager that none were broken. 

i also support the club sending out 1872 promotional material as it can benefit the club and the support. I would happily receive emails about Rangers lotto and generally anything that helps the club or the supporters. Maybe that's just me

So if I'm clear here;

What you are saying is that you do not care if data protection laws regarding informed consent are broken as long as someone can say "it's for the good or the club or the fans'.

Is that what you are saying?

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

3 hours ago, The Beast said:

So if I'm clear here;

What you are saying is that you do not care if data protection laws regarding informed consent are broken as long as someone can say "it's for the good or the club or the fans'.

Is that what you are saying?

 

I suspect Hilary might disagree

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

4 hours ago, The Beast said:

So if I'm clear here;

What you are saying is that you do not care if data protection laws regarding informed consent are broken as long as someone can say "it's for the good or the club or the fans'.

Is that what you are saying?

It's the same deflecting excuse trotted out for every screw up or wrong doing, so that makes it all ok then. Utterly shameless.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

8 hours ago, The Beast said:

You didn't D'art but you weren't exactly condemning of them either.

I accept that people will not necessarily listen to me but they do listen to you and we all need you to speak out. 

I get that C1872 is in a "transitional phase" but the current custodians (whomever they are) are not fit for purpose. The fact we don't even know who they are is indicative of this.

IMHO the whole grand scheme is tottering on the brink, either they reverse some of the damage done and prove themselves to be a truly representative fans group which is entirely independent of the club or they slowly die.

If honest men like yourself can get in to power and reverse the rot that's already set in then that is good news. Otherwise I predict it will last as long as the Rangers Fans Board.

Thats probably very accurate bud - and the reason for that is that my disappointment is far greater with the board who are not in any kind of transitional phase and who put out statements suggesting unconditional support for our fans. The cause and effect of this is raising expectations falsely..

i was debating some of your points on twitter last night, particularly relative to OBFA, and I would agree that as a matter of urgency they really should get the board elected and the constitution established

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

2 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Thats probably very accurate bud - and the reason for that is that my disappointment is far greater with the board who are not in any kind of transitional phase and who put out statements suggesting unconditional support for our fans. The cause and effect of this is raising expectations falsely..

i was debating some of your points on twitter last night, particularly relative to OBFA, and I would agree that as a matter of urgency they really should get the board elected and the constitution established

Or just disband and let us all get back to supporting Rangers without being at each others' throats.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

26 minutes ago, Corky True Legend said:

Or just disband and let us all get back to supporting Rangers without being at each others' throats.

Leaving our support with a considerable vacuum in respect of representation ?

[jimgers 565]

We the support (rank and file bear) own somewhere in the region of what, 5+ million shares?  I not sure what that is as a percentage of the ownership of the club?  But whatever the percentage is, this shareholding should be giving us significant voice that should be being listened to by the board, but as yet i don't see any signs of it.

I'm prepared to give Club1872 the time to get their act together, someone or somebody has to represent the fans and our shareholding. Starting from scratch and a new Blueprint is not an option imo,  However i want my representative to be more robust in dealing with supporter issues with the board, merely repeating or reiterating what the board say is not an option for me, i want our voice heard and the board to act on what the supporters want and need. If that causes friction between the board and our reps and support so be it.

[Ace 3,556]

3 minutes ago, jimgers said:

We the support (rank and file bear) own somewhere in the region of what, 5+ million shares?  I not sure what that is as a percentage of the ownership of the club?  But whatever the percentage is, this shareholding should be giving us significant voice that should be being listened to by the board, but as yet i don't see any signs of it.

I'm prepared to give Club1872 the time to get their act together, someone or somebody has to represent the fans and our shareholding. Starting from scratch and a new Blueprint is not an option imo,  However i want my representative to be more robust in dealing with supporter issues with the board, merely repeating or reiterating what the board say is not an option for me, i want our voice heard and the board to act on what the supporters want and need. If that causes friction between the board and our reps and support so be it.

The problem is that many folk take what you read online as being the opinion of the vast majority of the support & I just don't believe that to be the case.

The stuff we read here & on other forums tends to be the most extreme or most strident of viewpoints & I honestly think (imo) that the wider support just aren't as strident, or care as much about c1872 are all, let alone thier opinion on many things.

Now, that's a huge problem for c1872 in how do they contact the engage with the offline support and get them interested

[jimgers 565]

33 minutes ago, Ace said:

The problem is that many folk take what you read online as being the opinion of the vast majority of the support & I just don't believe that to be the case.

The stuff we read here & on other forums tends to be the most extreme or most strident of viewpoints & I honestly think (imo) that the wider support just aren't as strident, or care as much about c1872 are all, let alone thier opinion on many things.

Now, that's a huge problem for c1872 in how do they contact the engage with the offline support and get them interested

I entirely agree with you on that, you tend to find, i may be generalising here. The supporters who join the supporters groups, buys shares, are vociferous on the forums, are the ones i'm talking about, but they still need and deserve a robust representation at board level.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

26 minutes ago, Ace said:

The problem is that many folk take what you read online as being the opinion of the vast majority of the support & I just don't believe that to be the case.

The stuff we read here & on other forums tends to be the most extreme or most strident of viewpoints & I honestly think (imo) that the wider support just aren't as strident, or care as much about c1872 are all, let alone thier opinion on many things.

Now, that's a huge problem for c1872 in how do they contact the engage with the offline support and get them interested

Hence Ace why I thought the better option would have been to automatically incude ST holders without financial contribution

[Ace 3,556]

6 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Hence Ace why I thought the better option would have been to automatically incude ST holders without financial contribution

I agree D, that ALL ST holders should be automatically members of c1872, however only fee paying members should have voting rights.

Can't remember what your thoughts were on that

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

5 minutes ago, Ace said:

I agree D, that ALL ST holders should be automatically members of c1872, however only fee paying members should have voting rights.

Can't remember what your thoughts were on that

More or less as you have intimated bud re voting rights - there was quite a bit of discussion on this particularly with Robert & Greg on some of the other threads.

[NamibianBear 1,851]

8 hours ago, The Beast said:

So if I'm clear here;

What you are saying is that you do not care if data protection laws regarding informed consent are broken as long as someone can say "it's for the good or the club or the fans'.

Is that what you are saying?

That's a personal opinion and one he would be entitled too but one, I guess, most would not be happy with.

For what it's worth, I have written the OPT-IN, OPT-OUT check (tick) boxes for a number of different companies and they always want the sneaky way of getting you to opt in.  If you read the board (RIFC) privacy policy (should be on the website) then it will detail who and where they might sell your information if you give consent.

Of course, the sneaky way to do it is to word it badly so you tick it thinking you are opting out when you are opting in OR you word it so that if you don't agree then you are not a Rangers supporter (a bit like the initial promotion of C1872 by certain individuals..........).

You may remove your consent, in writing to the RIFC Board or the webmaster of the website.

[Spectre 1,663]

11 hours ago, The Beast said:

There's very clear guidelines from the UK government about "informed consent". I'm unclear how informed the majority of Rangers fans are to their data being shared and who is privy to that data once it is shared. I would not want the likes of the gimp houston within a mile of my personal data.

From my account on the website it seems the club lumps itself, sponsors and partners into the same option which seems a little snide to me. You'd expect to be able to opt in to club communications only. 

[Louden_Greg 827]

9 hours ago, The Beast said:

So if I'm clear here;

What you are saying is that you do not care if data protection laws regarding informed consent are broken as long as someone can say "it's for the good or the club or the fans'.

Is that what you are saying?

im sure you can read but I have no idea how you got that from what I said.

[Falcoholic 1,348]

2 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

Leaving our support with a considerable vacuum in respect of representation ?

Yeah, but we don't really have any representation do we?

This C1872 is clearly never going to represent anyone but themselves.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

5 minutes ago, Falcoholic said:

Yeah, but we don't really have any representation do we?

This C1872 is clearly never going to represent anyone but themselves.

I struggle to see how you can arrive at such conclusion when neither the board of Club 1872 nor the constitution have yet been established.

[Falcoholic 1,348]

1 minute ago, D'Artagnan said:

I struggle to see how you can arrive at such conclusion when neither the board of Club 1872 nor the constitution have yet been established.

Fair point. Perhaps I'm more than a little apprehensive and skeptical about the whole C1872 organisation given those currently involved

It's just a bit like, we don't know what we're doing or where we're going or who's going to be in charge but join up and give us your money anyway and then we'll let you know.

Sorry but it's not for me

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

9 minutes ago, Falcoholic said:

Fair point. Perhaps I'm more than a little apprehensive and skeptical about the whole C1872 organisation given those currently involved

It's just a bit like, we don't know what we're doing or where we're going or who's going to be in charge but join up and give us your money anyway and then we'll let you know.

Sorry but it's not for me

Fal,

I can understand some of the concerns you have expressed - Id rather there had been much more in the way of consultation & that it had included all ST holders automatically.

But we are where we are and we have via the elections an opportunity to shape it ourselves and mould it into a supporters organisation which is befitting of our wonderful support.

[The Beast 9,226]

45 minutes ago, Spectre said:

From my account on the website it seems the club lumps itself, sponsors and partners into the same option which seems a little snide to me. You'd expect to be able to opt in to club communications only. 

Indeed, hence my point about informed consent.

If you say that you would like communication from the club, you then have no idea who the club is whoring your personal data to for a profit.

It's a low and shitty way for any organisation to behave. 

[The Beast 9,226]

1 hour ago, NamibianBear said:

That's a personal opinion and one he would be entitled too but one, I guess, most would not be happy with.

For what it's worth, I have written the OPT-IN, OPT-OUT check (tick) boxes for a number of different companies and they always want the sneaky way of getting you to opt in.  If you read the board (RIFC) privacy policy (should be on the website) then it will detail who and where they might sell your information if you give consent.

Of course, the sneaky way to do it is to word it badly so you tick it thinking you are opting out when you are opting in OR you word it so that if you don't agree then you are not a Rangers supporter (a bit like the initial promotion of C1872 by certain individuals..........).

You may remove your consent, in writing to the RIFC Board or the webmaster of the website.

Yes you may but it's most likely shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.