Club Legend
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by D'Artagnan

  1. IMO they should do Smile - the judicial review which was being undertaken has now been completed & found in our favour However I wouldnt hold my breath On Monday Jackson wrote an article comparing our club to North Korea - it would have taken all of 5 minutes to usurp his article and utterly destroy its credibility - instead we were met with an all too familiar silence.
  2. Dont we have a name for that ? ...."Dignified Silence" Yep thats worked well right enough.
  3. "Journalist, researcher, writer, historian, archivist. I've worked for the BBC and STV, although I represent neither."
  4. Apologies if this journey appears a tad confusing, I can assure you none of it is my doing. It starts with Rangers player Andy Halliday receiving a red card against Morton for a goal celebration which officials deemed had the potential to incite a riot. Further along the road we have a security guard gesturing a 5 - 1 sign whilst posing for a photograph with Hibs manager Neil's Lennon. A gesture the Edinburgh club described as "insulting" and which merited a complaint. Our journey ends at Ibrox with Neil Lennon aforesaid, gesticulating a GIRUY to the Rangers support during a match Police Scotland had expressed concern about. Despite all of the foregoing this incident was deemed neither insulting nor likely to incite a riot, apparently it could be categorised as "banter" I have read and listened to several comments from bears in response to the Club1872 statement regarding Lennon's conduct. "Ill-advised" "Misjudged" as well as the suggestion it has deflected from other matters e.g. the very one-sided refereeing display. If any of you think Beaton's performance would have been subjected to forensic examination by the Scottish media you are clearly more optimistic than me. For example. Keith Jackson's Monday column appeared to have been prepared based on the ongoing boycott of the Daily Record and the introduction of a camera to the Rangers press conference, both subjects which have attracted his ire. There is almost a suggestion of Rangers fans having temerity and audacity to choose to boycott a newspaper which has been shown to print lies about them. His own newspaper’s lies in respect of Rangers supporters is something Jackson's fails to mention in his column. Furthermore, as he sets out to compare our club to the North Korean regime, hinting that the presence of a camera to record proceedings is some kind of "sinister sub text" he neglects to mention its primary purpose is so that our manager can analyse his performance at press conferences. Those of us who had undergone even the briefest of media training will know such practice is commonplace. The only sinister element at play here appears to be the very selective presentation of facts in a manner befitting a totalitarian despot regime. There has also been the suggestion the club itself should have taken the lead on the response and highlighted the refereeing. I refrain from using the term “bad” or “abysmal” refereeing as it would suggest it was consistently bad across the board – it was anything but. But as someone who has been particularly critical of “dignified silence” from Rangers’ boards I find myself in a strange place. However, the issue of the refereeing performance is a matter for the club to pursue and they appear to be doing so courtesy of the appeal of Jack’s red card. Would it be appropriate to comment prior to the conclusion of the judicial proceedings which will determine the outcome of that appeal? “Unlawful Tom” appeared to be concentrating on the “indignant” nature of Rangers fans regarding Beaton’s performance rather than offer any analysis of it. (As a side note, a few have contacted me regarding the initial response from the BBC regarding complaints. My suggestion would be to escalate if you are not satisfied with the response – if they refuse to do so I’d suggest addressing your concerns via Ofcom) When Butcher/Woods/Roberts and McAvennie were deemed to have fallen foul of the law Sheriff Archibald McKay was unequivocal in his summation at the end of the trial. “A large percentage of supporters are readily converted by breaches of the peace into two rival mobs. That they were not so transformed is no credit to you. You must have been aware of your wider responsibilities and you failed to discharge them” There is a clear message within that summation of both the standards of behaviour and responsibility of those on the park. If you think Neil Lennon satisfied either on Saturday then your opinion is different to mine. A person does not require to be offended to recognise irresponsible, reckless and provocative behaviour. Of course the easy option for Club1872 would have been to remain silent, to say nothing, to ignore all the foregoing. And in doing so they would have fulfilled the brief provided recently by others :- “Know your place H** scum”
  5. I think you are being too hard on yourself Toad. We have had both a football club and their support who have implied, suggestedand & screamed that our referees were biased, corrupt, masons etc etc. Referees have been assaulted by their fans and their club even employed a private detective to follow one referee. Eventually these level of accuations led our referees to strike. I think the concern amongst many is that the intimdations and contant accusations have taken their toll of Scottish refs to the point where they are frightened to give decisions which are unfavourable to Celtic as we saw on Friday night with that Thistle penalty. Furthermore to avoid accusations of favouring Rangers they are awarding decisions the like of which led to Saturday's farcical display of refereeing at Ibrox.
  6. You continue to use the word "offended" yet I am yet to meet a bear who has claimed to be "offended" by Lennon's actions. Angry yes at the irresponsible and provocative nature of his conduct - but offended ? - no. Nor does that statement suggest offence being taken but refers to inflammatory gestures during a match which the Police had characterised as high risk due to the previous meeting of the clubs and its conclusion. Furthermore his behaviour is inconsistent and at odds with the summation of a sheriff when on the field incidents met with that big bad world you refer to.
  7. I always become concerned when people start introducing things during a discussion which are infactual and erroneous.. Im struggling to find anything in the Club 1872 statement which would qualify as "gasping in shock". Just for simplicty here it is in full.
  8. You seem to be the only one talking about being "offended". Im not offended -I'm livid at the considerable inconsistency at play here. If an official deems a gesture worthy of a red card suggesting it has the potential to incite a riot shouldnt we reasonably expect that to be appllied evenly and across the board ?
  9. Yet depending on how you wear those pigtails the response and censure can be quite different.
  10. Only problem being that Club 1872 didnt exist at the time of the incidents you refer to,
  11. No I understand bud - there are quite a fews issues around this probably even worthy of a blog !!
  12. Yes they do and I normally dont get involved in the moral high horse nonsense which we see so often on forums and especially twitter. However notwithstanding that, I do think Lennon's behaviour is inconsistent with the expectations and standards espoused by a sheriff previously regarding the conduct of those on the park.
  13. Thats roughly my understanding as well RSC - I know for a fact it wasnt Club1872 who made the complaint. In fairness to the gambler I dont think he is suggesting that either
  14. I'll repost it bud here...
  15. Do you think Gambler that Lennon's behaviour is consistent with the summation I posted erlier in the thread from Sheriff McKay ?
  16. Nope it didnt. And that is totally different to the formal complaint which has been tendered which is the catalyst to the current Police probe.
  17. Club1872 didnt report the matter to the Police.
  18. In our defence its a long trip home without a drink so we stock up early !!
  19. You should have said hello ! Furthermore if you were behind me in the queue you will know the round came to £43 yet the barmaid only took £40 - hardly the actions of a pub exploiting bears. Were you impressed that I got such a big round right ? - albeit with a considerable amount of coaching !!
  20. Whilst its certainly a consideration TMB - I dont think drink is the determining factor here. The judge's summation seems to acknowledge that football matches are a highly charged atmosphere and places an onus on those involved on the pitch to behave in a responsible manner and to exhibit a wider responsibility than those in spectator areas. Lennon has failed to do that.
  21. We discussed this on Saturday bud when we were in. Given that singing is allowed inside the pub I suspect its because of complaints regarding noise from the beer garden. Also notable that no music is played outside which reinforces the notion.
  22. This was Sheriff Archibald McKay's summation from the Woods/Butcher/Roberts/McAvennie trial.
  23. Oh dear seem to have ruffled a few feathers there old boy. No-one saying he is running a charity - he is running a business, Id be interested to hear you validate your allegation of exploiting the blue pound given the fact patrons at his pub go there freely and under no compulsion whatsoever.
  24. Noted !!