Keith Jackson banned from Ibrox?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

so to sum up. nothing has changed since yesterday. we still don't know what this forms about and everyone on here now loves grandmaster suck.

No. To sum up - a senior journalist at a national paper saw his story killed by his seniors and in doing so delivered a very public humiliation for the journalist.

This appears to be upsetting you as it seems you are keen to avoid that simple truth.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

so to sum up. nothing has changed since yesterday.

Wrong. The allegations that Craig Whyte is going to "Leed" us down a path of destruction have been removed after an alleged complaint.

so to sum up. we still don't know what this forms about

Correct

so to sum up. everyone on here now loves grandmaster suck.

Wrong. Ive not read anyone in all these pages saying that. The only part he plays in this is that he has said it has happened. Everybody elses comments are on there feelings on Jackson.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

To sum up - this is either the newspaper silly season and the Day-Late Retard and 'Keef' got caught out, or......there is some validity to the story and the wee London-based spiv decided to test the water, litigiousness-wise.

It is a puzzle.

That this story has been removed form the Day-Late Retard website would indicate that the Retard blinked first.

Interesting times though.

[Frankie 505]

Apparently Jackson was banned for a short while whilst the Record considered Rangers threat of legal action should the paper not retract the allegations.

This obviously happened yesterday evening when the story was removed from their website and I'd imagine an apology will be forthcoming over the next few days.

Rather embarrassing for the paper/journalist involved but not yet an indication of a sea-change in the way we deal with inaccurate publicity as SDM/MIH would have done the same thing if he was personally slighted.

[gunslinger 270]

Why are you so concerned about this and why have you a major bee in your bonnet about Craig Whyte.

Can't you be optimistic for once and maybe see the likes of AJ and Bain were looking after number 1 and not the best interests of the club...maybe they were the Charlatans and not Whyte.

if there's an honest explanation for this form then when mr whyte gets round to telling us what it is i will look into taking his side.

[gunslinger 270]

Apparently Jackson was banned for a short while whilst the Record considered Rangers threat of legal action should the paper not retract the allegations.

This obviously happened yesterday evening when the story was removed from their website and I'd imagine an apology will be forthcoming over the next few days.

Rather embarrassing for the paper/journalist involved but not yet an indication of a sea-change in the way we deal with inaccurate publicity as SDM/MIH would have done the same thing if he was personally slighted.

exactly.

when he stands up for the club or the fans thats when he starts earning respect.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Apparently Jackson was banned for a short while whilst the Record considered Rangers threat of legal action should the paper not retract the allegations.

This obviously happened yesterday evening when the story was removed from their website and I'd imagine an apology will be forthcoming over the next few days.

Rather embarrassing for the paper/journalist involved but not yet an indication of a sea-change in the way we deal with inaccurate publicity as SDM/MIH would have done the same thing if he was personally slighted.

A well-known Blogging ex-journo told me not too long ago that, quote, "Rangers won't ban the Odious Creep as the rest of the Press Pack would back him in such a fight".

If your "apparently" is correct Frankie then the Blogging ex-journo was wrong and the litigious one (Mr Spiv) has the gloves off.

A lifetime ban on the Odious Creep would be forthcoming soon - one would think, would one not?

[Frankie 505]

exactly.

when he stands up for the club or the fans thats when he starts earning respect.

Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here.

Like I say, there's no real evidence of a huge strategic change in our media tact but that's Radio 5 (via Campbell) and the Record (via Jackson) who've had their collar felt. Good news in anyone's book.

However, there was also a scandalous editorial in The Times the other week where they brought Rangers into the nonsense that happened at Tynecastle. Nothing was done there - at least not that I'm aware of.

As always, time will tell but I'm hopeful the club are certainly being more aggressive than usual when dealing with half-truths and mischief-making.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here.

Like I say, there's no real evidence of a huge strategic change in our media tact but that's Radio 5 (via Campbell) and the Record (via Jackson) who've had their collar felt. Good news in anyone's book.

However, there was also a scandalous editorial in The Times the other week where they brought Rangers into the nonsense that happened at Tynecastle. Nothing was done there - at least not that I'm aware of.

As always, time will tell but I'm hopeful the club are certainly being more aggressive than usual when dealing with half-truths and mischief-making.

Was that yon' DICKinson scrote again?

[Frankie 505]

A well-known Blogging ex-journo told me not too long ago that, quote, "Rangers won't ban the Odious Creep as the rest of the Press Pack would back him in such a fight".

If your "apparently" is correct Frankie then the Blogging ex-journo was wrong and the litigious one (Mr Spiv) has the gloves off.

A lifetime ban on the Odious Creep would be forthcoming soon - one would think, would one not?

I'm hoping the club are being clever here.

If they are indeed going down the route of dealing quickly with such liars then it would have been easy to ban Spiers immediately for past indiscretions. That would have given him the unique martyr status he craves.

However, by banning the likes of Campbell and Jackson first (even for only 30mins or so in the latter case I believe) Spiers no longer can claim victimisation or uniqueness. He'll be just another journalist banned for spreading muck on the toilet walls.

Hopefully.

[bluepeter 5,627]

so to sum up. nothing has changed since yesterday. we still don't know what this forms about and everyone on here now loves grandmaster suck.

I'm trying to work out what the hell is wrong with you, but I'm stumped

Must be hell going through life with an attitude like yours, how do you manage to get out of bed in the morning?

[Frankie 505]

Was that yon' DICKinson scrote again?

No separate to that - happened a few weeks after it. No name was put to the editorial and Tony Evans (Sports Editor) denied writing it as he was on holiday. Also said he didn't agree with it and would not have allowed it to be published.

[gunslinger 270]

Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here.

Like I say, there's no real evidence of a huge strategic change in our media tact but that's Radio 5 (via Campbell) and the Record (via Jackson) who've had their collar felt. Good news in anyone's book.

However, there was also a scandalous editorial in The Times the other week where they brought Rangers into the nonsense that happened at Tynecastle. Nothing was done there - at least not that I'm aware of.

As always, time will tell but I'm hopeful the club are certainly being more aggressive than usual when dealing with half-truths and mischief-making.

i am hopeful myself i must admitt.

however, we cant overlook the fact that kj raised a serious issue and its been buried here. its not like mr whyte has told us not to worry and explained himself. rather hes went after the person who asked the question.

[gunslinger 270]

I'm trying to work out what the hell is wrong with you, but I'm stumped

Must be hell going through life with an attitude like yours, how do you manage to get out of bed in the morning?

i work nights so i dont have to get up in the morning

[BILL.I.AM 18]

I don't get it??

Where is the source sayin it was Whyte who got the article removed? 7 pages and not one source?

[Frankie 505]

i am hopeful myself i must admitt.

however, we cant overlook the fact that kj raised a serious issue and its been buried here. its not like mr whyte has told us not to worry and explained himself. rather hes went after the person who asked the question.

Michael Grant in The Herald suggests Whyte signed a Stock Market document which said he wouldn't go down the Ticketus route.

[gunslinger 270]

Michael Grant in The Herald suggests Whyte signed a Stock Market document which said he wouldn't go down the Ticketus route.

good well thats all we need to be told.

this should have been buried in 10 minutes on the rangers website.

[Frankie 505]

I don't get it??

Where is the source sayin it was Whyte who got the article removed? 7 pages and not one source?

MD posted it on FF last night - clearly he'd get his information from his undoubted contacts within the club.

This did happen as the story has been removed from the Record website pending legal investigation. It may well be amended then reinstated but I doubt it - an apology is more likely.

[Frankie 505]

good well thats all we need to be told.

this should have been buried in 10 minutes on the rangers website.

I agree.

It's all well and good leaking 'positive' stuff to different outlets but we have our own site and we should use it to divulge such stuff when required. That would be more credible than just another journalist who'll change his opinion depending on what way the wind blows.

[WillemBear 17]

No separate to that - happened a few weeks after it. No name was put to the editorial and Tony Evans (Sports Editor) denied writing it as he was on holiday. Also said he didn't agree with it and would not have allowed it to be published.

Any links to that story in The Times, Frankie ?

[BILL.I.AM 18]

MD posted it on FF last night - clearly he'd get his information from his undoubted contacts within the club.

This did happen as the story has been removed from the Record website pending legal investigation. It may well be amended then reinstated but I doubt it - an apology is more likely.

Don't go on FF it's a load of pish.

Think al wait n see if there is a real source before making judgement rather than someone on a forum.

[Frankie 505]

Any links to that story in The Times, Frankie ?

The Times website is behind a pay wall but I've quoted the editorial below - which is the subject of a PCC complaint/appeal from a variety of Rangers fans (though crucially not the club itself).

The important thing is not to be as naive as Paul Gascoigne. When the star arrived to play for Glasgow Rangers in the mid-Nineties, the city’s Protestant-run team, it transpired that his footballing skills were greater than his mastery of Glasgow’s sectarian political history.

Gascoigne chose to celebrate a Rangers goal against Glasgow Celtic by playing an imaginary flute in front of the rival fans. He only appreciated the symbolism of the Orangemen’s flute when Catholic Celtic fans threatened to slit his throat.

Observers unaccustomed to Glasgow politics and uninterested in football may see the various attempts to do violence to the Celtic manager Neil Lennon in the same way that Gascoigne saw his goal celebration — just another bit of football mischief, perhaps gone a bit far. But such a view would be quite wrong. What we are witnessing is a serious social breakdown, in which someone could well be killed before long.

Ancient religious rivalry has become ancient football rivalry. A so-called Old Firm game — a Rangers versus Celtic local derby — in 1975 resulted in two attempted murders, two cleaver attacks, one axe attack and nine stabbings. When Rangers first signed a Catholic player, some fans boycotted the club altogether, while others frightened off any supporters who shouted encouragement.

The attempt to intimidate Lennon should be seen by the Scottish authorities and by footballing authorities as an important challenge to freedom of association. They need to act with much greater vigour and urgency than they appear to be doing, and should consider suspending Rangers or banning Old Firm games if necessary.

Although an opinion piece which are more difficult to legally challenge it contains at least two lies while the final conclusion is about as balanced as early 20th century ships after hitting icebergs.

[Frankie 505]

Don't go on FF it's a load of pish.

Think al wait n see if there is a real source before making judgement rather than someone on a forum.

FF and its sources are no more p!sh than any other forum.

Usually I try and corroborate such stuff though when it appears so I can make a more learned opinion on it. According to the high net worth community, Jackson was indeed banned yesterday - temporarily at least.

And the story has clearly been retracted (again temporarily at least) given it is no longer on their website.

[Martin Luther 53]

if there's an honest explanation for this form then when mr whyte gets round to telling us what it is i will look into taking his side.

Mr Whyte wont get round to telling you. Its not how he does things. That silence doesn't mean there are thing lurking in the shadows ready to jump out.

He is a successful business man before Rangers and you never heard of him maybe he is not the type of self publicist ala Tom Hunter and Michelle Mone.

[RFC55 108,733]

Lets get this straight here. When the Scott Brown story broke and the record printed it, something about Monkeyheed trying to sell him, liewell and ra ira fitbawclub issued statements denying it! The next day the Records back page was "We stand by what we said" If it was true they would do the same.

Gunslinger Whyte and his people have already said a form does exist and the form actually meant THEY WOULD NOT DO WHAT THE RECORD CLAIM! Anyway rant away ya looney