Keith Jackson banned from Ibrox?

[gunslinger 270]

You have noticed that we were recently taken over, a new regime is in place, and a far harder line is being taken with the mhedia? You must have noticed. Surely you heard about Whyte, Wavetower, Betts et al?

i heard a rumour from your pal dingers certainly.

but what they may or may not have done was nothing compared to the scrutiny the darrell king article was put under by sdm and it survived with a minor change and apologie to prove it was scrutinised.

[boss 1,941]

[caseyjones 3,009]

Any proof yet that this thread isn't merely based on fiction?

[thebooler 4,509]

Any proof yet that this thread isn't merely based on fiction?

Dae ye no buy the papers?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Dae ye no buy the papers?

Naw. Dae ye no read the thread titles?

[thebooler 4,509]

Naw. Dae ye no read the thread titles?

Well if ye don't buy the papers, ye'll no can "read between the lines"

[thebooler 4,509]

Naw. Dae ye no read the thread titles?

Aye, as far as I can see the thread title is somebody simply asking a question - hence this wee thingy at the end of the thread title........................?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Well if ye don't buy the papers, ye'll no can "read between the lines"

You don't half talk some pish at times.

[gunslinger 270]

looks like the record forgot to apologise again

[Martin Luther 53]

looks like the record forgot to apologise again

Sometime I think you want the worse case scenario to unfold so you in a perverse way can say see a told you so.

you take your stance and Ill take mine none of us no for sure whats happening but one of us will be right.

Or maybe none of us will be right.

the feeling im getting is that you have crossed the Rubicon on this one and the lady is not for turning.

pride comes before a fall.

[Guardian 4,281]

looks like the record forgot to apologise again

Looks like they also forgot to put it back on their website.

Dunno why you are fixated about this apology. Just cos we demanded one doesn't mean we'll get it. We can't force them to give us one. We can force them to pull the article if it's not true though.

It's almost like your rejoicing in ayebuttery that we didn't get everything we asked for.

[gunslinger 270]

Sometime I think you want the worse case scenario to unfold so you in a perverse way can say see a told you so.

you take your stance and Ill take mine none of us no for sure whats happening but one of us will be right.

Or maybe none of us will be right.

the feeling im getting is that you have crossed the Rubicon on this one and the lady is not for turning.

pride comes before a fall.

that rubicon is shite mate. fizzy fruit juice. wtf.

[thebooler 4,509]

Looks like they also forgot to put it back on their website.

Dunno why you are fixated about this apology. Just cos we demanded one doesn't mean we'll get it. We can't force them to give us one. We can force them to pull the article if it's not true though.

It's almost like your rejoicing in ayebuttery that we didn't get everything we asked for.

It could also be that Craig Whyte received a personal apology in writing from them.

If so, that's his business.

All we should be bothered about is the fact it's been taken down from their website, and we probably won't see any more of their shite in the papers.

[gunslinger 270]

it could also be this was pish from the off. given it was posted after the article came down perhaps someone shot there load and created the biggest game of jizz the biscuit in decades in the process.

[bluepeter 5,627]

looks like the record forgot to apologise again

Are you saying that you don't believe we've been in contact telling them to remove the article, but you do know that if we had we would have demanded an apology in the paper?

[caseyjones 3,009]

Are you saying that you don't believe we've been in contact telling them to remove the article, but you do know that if we had we would have demanded an apology in the paper?

Maybe he's saying that since there has been no comment from either the newspaper in question or from Rangers, all of this has been pure conjecture?

[bluepeter 5,627]

Maybe he's saying that since there has been no comment from either the newspaper in question or from Rangers, all of this has been pure conjecture?

Maybe he is, or maybe he's saying what I suggested. I guess we'll never know until he tells us.

I don't see what the obsession is with Craig Whyte having to tell us all what he had for breakfast anyway. Obviously there are things it would be nice to know, but we seem to demand all sorts of statements from him, when he has no obligation to give us them.

Here's a "what if?" What if Whyte read the article, phoned the Record and told them to remove it or Jackson was banned from Ibrox. They removed it because they checked and it wasn't true. That is end of story. Whyte doesn't have to tell us he did that, the Record are under no obligation to apologise. Oh, and Jackson and the Record think twice before publishing any story about us again.

Result? No, we demand answers!

[caseyjones 3,009]

Maybe he is, or maybe he's saying what I suggested. I guess we'll never know until he tells us.

I don't see what the obsession is with Craig Whyte having to tell us all what he had for breakfast anyway. Obviously there are things it would be nice to know, but we seem to demand all sorts of statements from him, when he has no obligation to give us them.

Here's a "what if?" What if Whyte read the article, phoned the Record and told them to remove it or Jackson was banned from Ibrox. They removed it because they checked and it wasn't true. That is end of story. Whyte doesn't have to tell us he did that, the Record are under no obligation to apologise. Oh, and Jackson and the Record think twice before publishing any story about us again.

Result? No, we demand answers!

I'll give you another one. The Record printed the story only for the legal department to step in to say that they were on dodgy ground and that it should be removed. Both perfectly reasonable scenarios, but still just in the 'what if' category.

I don't mind there being a debate on things, however boring they can get, it's the way posters will believe the media when it suits their pov, but will slaughter them when it doesn't. Even Dingwall is being accepted as reliable ffs despite the fact that he'd do anything to get hits on his site.

[bluepeter 5,627]

I'll give you another one. The Record printed the story only for the legal department to step in to say that they were on dodgy ground and that it should be removed. Both perfectly reasonable scenarios, but still just in the 'what if' category.

I don't mind there being a debate on things, however boring they can get, it's the way posters will believe the media when it suits their pov, but will slaughter them when it doesn't. Even Dingwall is being accepted as reliable ffs despite the fact that he'd do anything to get hits on his site.

Precisely, it's all whataboutery. For a poster to revel in thinking he's 'right' and basically saying "I told you so" when nobody knows what went on is ludicrous. Strikes me as childish attention-seeking, to be honest.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Precisely, it's all whataboutery. For a poster to revel in thinking he's 'right' and basically saying "I told you so" when nobody knows what went on is ludicrous. Strikes me as childish attention-seeking, to be honest.

There's a lot of it about.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I'll give you another one. The Record printed the story only for the legal department to step in to say that they were on dodgy ground and that it should be removed.

Unlikely, Casey. Bigger papers can access legal advice when they require it prior to publication, but perhaps more importantly, if the Record thought they had this wrong, wouldn't pulling the story online only feed suspicions as to the articles legality? They cannot remove all the printed material after the event.

Perhaps we'll never know for certain, but, from experience, my money is on pressure being brought to bear on the Record otherwise it would still be there.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

The Day-Late Retard and its weekend sister gutter rag The Sunday Liam have a long history of printing fabricated 100% utter, utter, utter-fucking pish.

On this occasion they've been brought to book for it.

"Result" I say.

PS. And for the record (pun intended) right-thinking Rangers supporters shouldn't be buying either of these downmarket arsewipe rags.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Unlikely, Casey. Bigger papers can access legal advice when they require it prior to publication, but perhaps more importantly, if the Record thought they had this wrong, wouldn't pulling the story online only feed suspicions as to the articles legality? They cannot remove all the printed material after the event.

Perhaps we'll never know for certain, but, from experience, my money is on pressure being brought to bear on the Record otherwise it would still be there.

I agree with you that we'll never know for certain and that pressure from Whyte was the most likely reason. The bollocks claims on here about Jackson being banned, Whyte sorting out the media and an end to the 'dignified silence' approach haven't, so far, had any proof to back them up.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I agree with you that we'll never know for certain and that pressure from Whyte was the most likely reason. The bollocks claims on here about Jackson being banned, Whyte sorting out the media and an end to the 'dignified silence' approach haven't, so far, had any proof to back them up.

Casey: I'll happily accept results when various media outlets rip into us if Whyte chooses not to shout from the rooftops how and why the results were gained.

Whyte's only been in charge for a matter of weeks and already we've seen both Nicky Campbell and Jackson embarrassed for their shite. It very-publicly damages both their individual standing and the credibility of their outlets.

Well and good!

[Adoniram 1,919]

Well i will throw my tuppence worth in and say that he isn't banned and neither are the Record.