The Empire Strikes Back

[caseyjones 3,009]

Has there been any word from Ibrox about the article in question or indeed the chances of KJ being allowed into Ibrox? I may have missed them, but if not, I can only assume that the 'dignified silence' approach will continue. Murray dealt with things in private too, usually when it was concerning a slight upon himself.

[BILL.I.AM 18]

Humiliating climb down

They put it on the back page of their newspaper and sent it across Scotland and now it isn't on their website.

It could be for a million other reasons. Someone high up at the paper could have rubbished the story after reading it and wanted to keep the reputation damage of such a poor story, at a minimum.

Like everyone else I don't know, or at least I don't think I know.

It very well may be true that it was Whyte who got it brought down but there is bo proof as it stands. Hopefully it was him

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Humiliating climb down

They put it on the back page of their newspaper and sent it across Scotland and now it isn't on their website.

It could be for a million other reasons. Someone high up at the paper could have rubbished the story after reading it and wanted to keep the reputation damage of such a poor story, at a minimum.

Like everyone else I don't know, or at least I don't think I know.

It very well may be true that it was Whyte who got it brought down but there is bo proof as it stands. Hopefully it was him

Yes it was . For a newspaper to print an alleged "exclusive" only to withdraw it from their website hours later is indeed humiliating. It suggests the journalistic sources and integrity cannot be confirmed or verified....perhaps in fact they dont even exist.

Id like to hear one of those "million reasons" you suggest...one which causes a newspaper to abandon its main "exclusive" and shocking lead in favour of something else.

[BILL.I.AM 18]

Yes it was . For a newspaper to print an alleged "exclusive" only to withdraw it from their website hours later is indeed humiliating. It suggests the journalistic sources and integrity cannot be confirmed or verified....perhaps in fact they dont even exist.

Id like to hear one of those "million reasons" you suggest...one which causes a newspaper to abandon its main "exclusive" and shocking lead in favour of something else.

I already gave u one, the one that u just used in ur first sentence which if is what happened, could have been the top dog of paper who pulled the story after finding KJ didn't have an adequate source to write such a story and not Whyte or his legal team.

As I said it's all guesswork untill someone comes forward and tells us.

I liked ur OP btw, just though it was premature.

[Britannia Bear 1]

You seem very sure:

What do you base your 'belief' on?

Craig Whyte is first and foremost a businessman. It's his job to ensure that Rangers is run as a successful business. I don't believe any representative of such a large insitution, least of all its owner, has anything to gain from stepping outside of their politically correct shackles. By stamping down on Keith Jacksons lies, he'll ensure our negotiations go as smoothly as possible in the transfer window as well as helping his own position. He wouldn't gain much by being seen to side with an 'extreme minority' of our supporters though.

[AlCapone 7,678]

Thansk god someones fighting our corner at last!

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I already gave u one, the one that u just used in ur first sentence which if is what happened, could have been the top dog of paper who pulled the story after finding KJ didn't have an adequate source to write such a story and not Whyte or his legal team.

As I said it's all guesswork untill someone comes forward and tells us.

I liked ur OP btw, just though it was premature.

The sources Bill which suggest KJ had been banned from Ibrox are pretty credible - and unlikely to make claims which they cannot substantiate if pushed.

When you compound that with the sudden removal of the story I think all the evidence suggests that the prime mover for the removal of this story came from within Ibrox.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

What I mean is, if Keith Jackson had written a scathing article about our fans and what we stand for, we wouldn't have heard a thing. No ban would have been imposed. The article in question concerned how Craig Whyte was going to run the club and how much money he could commit to us. It attacked him, so he defended himself. I doubt he'll defend us, which is what most of us really want. I don't think Keith Jacksons article is an example of the kind of attack against us that most of us are really bothered by, which are those portraying us as a bunch of scumbags.

Aye? How do you explain Rangers decisive response to Nicky Campbell's suggestion that the man who attacked Lonnen could have been a Rangers supporter dressed as a Hearts fan?

[Ace 3,556]

I would add the stories are usually run by legal departments before goin to print, to ensure they are not opening themselves up to libel.

At the time they obviously decided that the story had enough evidence and backup to allow it to go to press ... I do wonder what changed their mind. If they were satisfied with the story before what has changed their mind ??

[Britannia Bear 1]

Aye? How do you explain Rangers decisive response to Nicky Campbell's suggestion that the man who attacked Lonnen could have been a Rangers supporter dressed as a Hearts fan?

What a flimsy example of the kind of attack I'm talking about. What Campbell said was so absurd it wasn't even worth commenting on. There's nothing controversial about the club defending that. I look forward to hearing the protests from the club the next time some crank is calling for another of our songs to be banned or claiming we're the main culprits of sectarianism, bigoted neanderthals etc etc

[BILL.I.AM 18]

The sources Bill which suggest KJ had been banned from Ibrox are pretty credible - and unlikely to make claims which they cannot substantiate if pushed.

When you compound that with the sudden removal of the story I think all the evidence suggests that the prime mover for the removal of this story came from within Ibrox.

Ur obv in the know about the source where as i'm not which makes it harder for me to believe things that look like people jumping the gun.

After all, if we took everything on RM as the truth we would have been taken over 40 times since December and have a squad of 80 players with all the transfer runours

[Smile 26,600]

Whyte has only defended his own position, not the clubs. We're still going to be called stone age bigots from every corner and I bet nobody at Rangers will do anything about it.

Your an odd one.

[Britannia Bear 1]

Your an odd one.

Just think he's got a bit to do before he can be called our defender

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Just think he's got a bit to do before he can be called our defender

But every journey has got to have a start...

[Britannia Bear 1]

But every journey has got to have a start...

Yep, I'll be watching with interest.

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

it's a good sign to see Whyte act and act quickly, but i'm wary to believe that it's a sign of things to come.

I do believe that Rangers could quite easily issue a press ban to the paparazzi and communicate press through our clubs own channels and national news - ideally this is what i would like to see, it sends out a clear message that we will not answer to the bullshit lies that arewritten about our club and the fans. But i'm a realist, it's never going to happen.

The press will not be scared off from Whytes actions, he can't ban them all and they know that they hold more cards than he does, if they want information someone will leak it to them.

With regard to the Dignified Silence, a saying springs to mind immediately; "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference".

we only hear about these things that we have kept "dignified silence" on from the press, they can write about it how they like and will always show themselves to be in the right.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

What a flimsy example of the kind of attack I'm talking about.

But, wait, only moments ago you said if attacks were not relevant to Whyte himself then 'we wouldn't have heard a thing. No ban would have been imposed.'

And yet Campbell's ill considered attempt to demonise Rangers supporters was not only met with an instant response, but Campbell had a ban imposed.

But - I get it - despite being 100% incorrect, you're still determined to secure a place in the malcontent community. Good luck with that for you and all the rest of the greetin' faced.

[BLUE CYCLOPS 26]

So do you think that the article in question did not damage the club's financial credibility, particularly at a time when we are trying to attract new blood into the club ?

==================================================================================================================================================

Nationaly,who knows or cares who Keith Jackson is? His articles are hardly being consumed as gospel in the corridors of power.

Mr. Whyte would have been better getting the clubs legal team to have a quiet word with the DR editor and demanded a retraction

and/or a printed apology.That way the paper would be officially having their card marked against any further transgressions and

"the media" would see that Whyte means business.

All we have done is punished a no mark journo and left ourselves open to accusations of bully boy tactics against a journo.

I can imagine the headlines from Spiers/MgGobblegiver about Rangers and the spin and inuendo in their articles.

"What are Rangers afriad off" "Hullo,hullo we are the Bully boys" are the type of headline I mean.

They do not have to make any direct accusations or print lies, all they need is a steady drip,drip of inuendo and spin which paints the club in

a bad light without leaving themselves open to the clubs retaliation.

And all we have done is ban a 2nd. rate reporter who can hardly hurt us anyway.

[Smile 26,600]

Just think he's got a bit to do before he can be called our defender

Its a wait and see on Whyte as yet so i suppose in some way you are right but its a good move showing the press they wont get free reign over us.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I do believe that Rangers could quite easily issue a press ban to the paparazzi The press will not be scared off from Whytes actions

Eh? Why would the press be scared if Whyte decided to impose a 'press ban' on photographers who ordinarily target celebrities?

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

Eh? Why would the press be scared if Whyte decided to impose a 'press ban' on photographers who ordinarily target celebrities?

care to explain your self better in relation to my post, it's contradictory to what i said.

[bluepeter 5,627]

But, wait, only moments ago you said if attacks were not relevant to Whyte himself then 'we wouldn't have heard a thing. No ban would have been imposed.'

And yet Campbell's ill considered attempt to demonise Rangers supporters was not only met with an instant response, but Campbell had a ban imposed.

But - I get it - despite being 100% incorrect, you're still determined to secure a place in the malcontent community. Good luck with that for you and all the rest of the greetin' faced.

[Britannia Bear 1]

But, wait, only moments ago you said if attacks were not relevant to Whyte himself then 'we wouldn't have heard a thing. No ban would have been imposed.'

And yet Campbell's ill considered attempt to demonise Rangers supporters was not only met with an instant response, but Campbell had a ban imposed.

But - I get it - despite being 100% incorrect, you're still determined to secure a place in the malcontent community. Good luck with that for you and all the rest of the greetin' faced.

"What I mean is, if Keith Jackson had written a scathing article about our fans and what we stand for, we wouldn't have heard a thing. No ban would have been imposed."

That's the full quote, which isn't really the same as "attacks not relevant to Whyte himself". It's good Campbell was banned. I hope Spiers is next. I hadn't really remembered that incident when I wrote my first post, however, I still think what Campbell did was fairly trivial compared to some of the other nonsense that's been dished up to us. As I say, I'll be watching with interest.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

So do you think that the article in question did not damage the club's financial credibility, particularly at a time when we are trying to attract new blood into the club ?

==================================================================================================================================================

Nationaly,who knows or cares who Keith Jackson is? His articles are hardly being consumed as gospel in the corridors of power.

Mr. Whyte would have been better getting the clubs legal team to have a quiet word with the DR editor and demanded a retraction

and/or a printed apology.That way the paper would be officially having their card marked against any further transgressions and

"the media" would see that Whyte means business.

All we have done is punished a no mark journo and left ourselves open to accusations of bully boy tactics against a journo.

I can imagine the headlines from Spiers/MgGobblegiver about Rangers and the spin and inuendo in their articles.

"What are Rangers afriad off" "Hullo,hullo we are the Bully boys" are the type of headline I mean.

They do not have to make any direct accusations or print lies, all they need is a steady drip,drip of inuendo and spin which paints the club in

a bad light without leaving themselves open to the clubs retaliation.

And all we have done is ban a 2nd. rate reporter who can hardly hurt us anyway.

Im amazed that our club taking action against a newspaper story which is defammatory, erroneous and damaging to our club can be described by you as "bully boy tactics"

If you dont think that a damaging headline and alleged "exclusive" which is printed in a national tabloid is worthy of challenging then can I ask you...just what do you think is worthy of a challenge ?

Im quite sure yesterdays action will have sent the message that Rangers mean buisness.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

The press will not be scared off from Whytes actions, he can't ban them all and they know that they hold more cards than he does, if they want information someone will leak it to them.

Care to explain the highlighted bit.