77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 So the mhanks NOT GUILTY and. Charles Green was NOT PROVEN ..........need I say any moreit's semantics on this one.it always had to be "not guilty" as the banner was there in full living technocolour for all to say. they couldn't ever say "not proven". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theySTILLKNOW 80 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Was it last season they had one with Ibrox in flames? The amount of violent imagery they show about us is incredible and it's allowed.Ask them a question in a chant and we could get 5 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 it's semantics on this one.it always had to be "not guilty" as the banner was there in full living technocolour for all to say. they couldn't ever say "not proven".Not so much that the coulda been not proven tbh more that, as you've said the banner was ther in full living technicolor so surely this is nothing other than a guilty verdict considering banners etc are "vetted" before they are unfurled inside a stadium.....or again are only we subject to this?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
castlereaghger 44 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The only point i will make is this.The banner is offensive. There is no debate on this issue. However it would appear to me that when reading the SFA ruling they have cleared Celtic FC of any wrong doing...not that they would have found them guilty anyway.That's debatable can't say I'm petty enough to get wound up by that and act offended. Amount of people on here who say they don't give a fuck what that mob do yet every other thread seems to be about the mhanks ATM main reason I stay out of the bears den ATM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
True Azure 1,414 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Can someone explain to me how Rangers (or their employed stewards) be expected to effectively silence "offensive bigoted" singing at Ibrox when sellick (or their employed stewards) are so easily found not guilty of not being able to effectively remove an "offensive" banner?????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
8watp8 254 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 one way of sorting this out, ill get organised on painting a big fuck off banner of the RAF laying seige to the piggery with their british passports attached to the bombs fuck the taigs and the Scottish Fenian Association Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Not so much that the coulda been not proven tbh more that, as you've said the banner was ther in full living technicolor so surely this is nothing other than a guilty verdict considering banners etc are "vetted" before they are unfurled inside a stadium.....or again are only we subject to this??they deemed it not offensive, hence not guilty.not proven would mean that, for example, they heard there was a banner somewhere but couldn't prove it existed.before I need a tin hat, I should add that I'm not personally offended by the banner but DETEST the double standards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 they deemed it not offensive, hence not guilty.not proven would mean that, for example, they heard there was a banner somewhere but couldn't prove it existed.before I need a tin hat, I should add that I'm not personally offended by the banner but DETEST the double standards.Tbh mate I don't exactly find that banner offensive either but again it is down to the nature of what is allowed to be brought in to one stadium but not the other, sorry daft moment, do you mean the police and stewards found it not offensive or the sfa?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Tbh mate I don't exactly find that banner offensive either but again it is down to the nature of what is allowed to be brought in to one stadium but not the other, sorry daft moment, do you mean the police and stewards found it not offensive or the sfa??both I presume. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast_Bill 0 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Anyone know what actual charges they faced?Going by dims on facebook they were not charged with having an offense banner but..a) Letting the banner in to the groundb) allowing the banner to be displayedc) not removing the banner and allowing it to be displayed a second time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1983 9 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think this calls for a BJK banner at ibrox Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goianegra 4,710 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Neither surprised by the outcome or offended by their shit little banner.Doesn't change the fact that it's one rule for us and another for the rest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 both I presume.That's partially where I'm coming from though there is a not guilty verdict on a banner which can be deemed highly offensive especially when you look at the gunman......anyone can see where that is from yet it is a clear not guilty, Charles Green was clearly not guilty, if you read his statement it is clear what he is saying,yet another proven verdict is delivered, they could not find it in themselves to deliver a not guilty verdict although it is clear this should've been the outcome Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think this calls for a BJK banner at ibrox I think this is the type of thinking that leads to more problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Educator 1,572 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Tarriers cleared by SFA are we suprised? Not this bear, these fuckwits in ǝpɐbıɹq uǝǝɹb ǝɥʇ can get away with anything it seems but let ANYONE upset the MOPES and all hell breaks loose. Just confirms the SFA really does stand for the Scottish Fenian Association. Celtic have been cleared by a Scottish FA tribunal over charges that they failed to prevent an offensive banner being displayed at their stadium.A section of the support had unfurled a banner during a pre-season friendly against Norwich City which led to the club facing four charges from the governing body.A disciplinary tribunal met on Thursday and found the club not guilty on all counts.The banner in question depicted a gunman shooting a Rangers supporting zombie which has risen from the ground next to a gravestone carrying the club's badge.To the left, a reverse evolution process is shown, going in four stages from man to an ape which is sporting a Rangers scarf.Scottish FA rules require all clubs to take responsibility for the conduct of fans, listing a range of sanctions for any club which cannot prove that it had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure good behaviour.I can just imagine the call " Rod we're going to charge ce**ic for that banner they had up. If we wait a day or so can you re-write a couple of rules so we can find them not guilty?".With every judgement they just go to prove that they are guilty of all charges laid against them by the Rangers fans. It must be like being in Hitler’s bunker over there, "is that they enemy guns I hear, no, no it's just Mr Lawwel’s belly rumbling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 That's partially where I'm coming from though there is a not guilty verdict which canned deemed highly offensive especially when you look at the gunman......anyone can see where that is from yet it is a clear not guilty, Charles Green was clearly not guilty, if you read his statement it is clear what he is saying,yet another proven verdict is delivered, they could not find it in themselves to deliver a not guilty verdict although it is clear this should've been the outcomeit seems that they were quite clever (I know, unbelievable) with the gunman and it's from Call of Duty and opposed to where we think it's from. We know the intent though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1983 9 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think this is the type of thinking that leads to more problems.Your probably rite mate but then we would see difference of what would happen to us Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Neither surprised by the outcome or offended by their shit little banner.Doesn't change the fact that it's one rule for us and another for the rest.Exactly....people seem to think that most find the banner offensive when in fact it is the inconsistent way in which fans are dealt wit, remember they were find for having a fuck Uefa banner fs yet a gunman shooting down someone is alright Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Your probably rite mate but then we would see difference of what would happen to usI think we already know what that difference would be without creating more problems....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 it seems that they were quite clever (I know, unbelievable) with the gunman and it's from Call of Duty and opposed to where we think it's from. We know the intent though.Really from COD???Regardless mate if you look at the "heightened tensions" in Scottish society over the past few years involving "death threats" etc then surely a banner of this nature isn't one for a football ground?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Well, I'm here to talk about Rangers. Mind a year or two ago when we were all laughing at them for being paranoid? Well, this is the exact same. How is this being paranoid you fucking idiot. Rangers fans had a banner saying "enemy behind lines" banned. They have a banner like that and nothing happens.And what about there anti poppy banner aswell? Don't come into the thread then if you know what it's going to be about. You fanny no wonder they get away with murder with fannys like you not giving about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,393 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Anyone know what actual charges they faced?Going by dims on facebook they were not charged with having an offense banner but..a) Letting the banner in to the ground.....Yes, Guiltyb) allowing the banner to be displayed.....Yes, Guiltyc) not removing the banner and allowing it to be displayed a second time....Yes, GuiltySo why have they been found not guilty?They must have been charged with allowing an offensive banner to be displayed.But hey, the SFA think it's just a bit of craic Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goianegra 4,710 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Exactly....people seem to think that most find the banner offensive when in fact it is the inconsistent way in which fans are dealt wit, remember they were find for having a fuck Uefa banner fs yet a gunman shooting down someone is alright The only banner of theirs in recent memory I've been "offended" by is the anti-poppy one, which (surprise surprise) nothing really came of. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
77amurai 258 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Really from COD???Regardless mate if you look at the "heightened tensions" in Scottish society over the past few years involving "death threats" etc then surely a banner of this nature isn't one for a football ground??I'm not disagreeing with you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 i think the term is.... quelle supriseI think the term should be.......what's good for the goose is good for the gander.Gloves are off as regards to banners from now on it seems.There can be no other way to interpret this ruling.Good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.