Excellent work from VB

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Was back on at Sam again and he was apologetic for hanging up .I asked him whos decision it was to make that from page front page yesterday .He said it was Andy Harris chief Editor .Does anyone know anything about this guy ???

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I'd say that because the story made it to the paper they would have some proof of the attack. Witnesses etc.

If it turns out to be false I will happily retract that part.

So guilty until proved innocent?

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Who the fuck are we fighting in here .Ourselves or the real enemies ?? VB I salute you .

[Adoniram 1,919]

Andy Harris is just as bad as Rennie at the Rebel. No lover of Rangers at all.

[Bothwellbear 1,392]

How can a dog be part of a "sect"?

I never said it was.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

Very thorough and fantastic job. Well Done to those involved in this investigation. If only the journalists showed this much dedication in looking for facts rather than the drivel they actually write.

The thing is , it probably never even took them that long to find the info . Could teach some journos a thing or two

[CrackFox 245]

I'm on a mobile and not too clued up on things so can't quote but i'm astounded that any 'Rangers supporter' would see something negative about this article.

Don't want to be offensive but the guy needs to take a good look at himself and get fully behind us or gtf!

[Londonderry_Bear 111]

So we have an, allegedly, unprovoked attack on a dog...I am more than slightly sceptical...reported by a clear bigot who then boasts about being in the paper. The character of this man would have been enough, I would have hoped for any journalist to question the story but not seemingly when it's linked to our club...then again how is it linked to our club? The alleged attackers, according to the article called them "fenians" did they then attack while singing super rangers??? There are no concrete links between the alleged attack and Rangers or our fans

[Resting in my account 231]

Had a quick look around the other fans forums gn and ff and the story seems to be missing.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

So we have an, allegedly, unprovoked attack on a dog...I am more than slightly sceptical...reported by a clear bigot who then boasts about being in the paper. The character of this man would have been enough, I would have hoped for any journalist to question the story but not seemingly when it's linked to our club...then again how is it linked to our club? The alleged attackers, according to the article called them "fenians" did they then attack while singing super rangers??? There are no concrete links between the alleged attack and Rangers or our fans

There doesn't have to be a concrete link - the insinuation is enough.

[Resting in my account 231]

I'd say that because the story made it to the paper they would have some proof of the attack. Witnesses etc.

If it turns out to be false I will happily retract that part.

Recent posts from you tend to be rather controversial as in stirring it or perhaps just being glib.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

Had a quick look around the other fans forums gn and ff and the story seems to be missing.

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=974555

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Had a quick look around the other fans forums gn and ff and the story seems to be missing.

So has Frankie got an issue with VB as well?

That would surprise me

Maybe someone could post it on Gersnet to spread the word

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,516]

I hope FoCUS are studying his Facebook pages cause he deserves to be in court for such vile sectarian bigotry.

[scarkev 3,540]

I'd say that because the story made it to the paper they would have some proof of the attack. Witnesses etc.

If it turns out to be false I will happily retract that part.

So every story that makes the papers has proof or substance? News to me I must say!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I have no doubt you love your keyboard, it gives you the anonymity to spout your nonsense without you getting the coupon punched off you. You continue to goad and antagonize good Bears via your keyboard coz you don't have the minerals to do it at a game.

.... He says from behind the annonimity of his keyboard .... Cannae make this comedy gold up.

[Bad Robot 21,132]

Basically the cunt is glorifying British soldiers lying in their beds dying.

There's too many of these cunts in Glasgow.

Does anyone know if he works yet when he's full of his blues?

[Resting in my account 231]

.... He says from behind the annonimity of his keyboard .... Cannae make this comedy gold up.

I will meet you before any game you choose squire.

[Falcoholic 1,348]

I feel sorry for the dog living with this piece if scum.

Well done the VB, I'm hoping focus have been contacted.

Heel Heel!!

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,638]

Yeps, he playing the innocent saying not everyone is bigoted........................Police report no new leads.

It's awe right a goat it !

[Jonok 1,245]

Well thats TBB sorted then we're up to our knees in fenian dugs.

[scarkev 3,540]

Just a quick type into google (dog attacked Celtic) and you will see the purpose of that "story"..,,,every fan forum has a thread on it...."scumbag rangers fans", "sick zombies", "disgusting bigots" etc etc.....it just perpetuates the myth the media want to portray our club and fans in! This is despite no evidence to suggest this even happened....why was macavennie questioned on it? Why? Because they wanted to make it about football and more importantly a negative story about rangers! Some of you seriously need to wake up and see what is going on and what we are up against!

[bluepeter 5,627]

To paraphrase that article -

Whole Scottish football is on its knees, while the leadrship of the SFA and spfl have proven they are not fit for purpose, and the spfl has yet to find a sponsor - while the support of our great club look on at the open battle for control of our club, and while no party looking for control has communicated what they want to achieve - VB think its important to do a character assassination ad a no name ned, give the oxygen of more publicity to the sun and its shit story and legitimise the whole debate.

( btw i feel sorry for the dog on so many levels - shit owner, shit strip , and took a kicking from cowards! - no one seems to care for that 'victim' )

Vb has certain stated aims - articles like this are strategically unsound, tactically inept and it's such a shame so many in here don't see that!

The key to winning is to pick ur battles - this isn't even a battle - it's an insignificance that only appeals to a certain minority of our wider fan base but lets keep on ignoring the big stuff and promote the minutiae! Why?

This post is ridiculous in many ways, and convinces me that you are trolling here. I'll defend your right to a different opinion, and have done many times in the past, but you clearly had this reply half-written before you even opened the article.

Firstly, the state of Scottish football is completely irrelevant to this - you appear to have brought it up only to trivialise the subject of the article.

The battle for control of our club, similarly, is irrelevant and brought up for the same reason.

The oxygen of publicity has been given to this ned and his "zombie slaying" dog, it is absolutely right that this be challenged. Given that he has openly boasted about using this dog to attack Rangers fans, this context should be pointed out to the 'journalists' who penned this story without (it seems) even the simplest of checks.

As for this article being strategically unsound and tactically inept - perhaps you'd like to explain this part? VB's 'stated aims' include fighting back against false perceptions given of Rangers fans - this is absolutely within that stated aim, I would say. A front page story about Rangers fans attacking a dog, without a shred of evidence except the word of an openly bigoted ned who boasts about 'zombie slaying' with the dog in question - I'd say that should be challenged.

As for picking your battles, again I think a front page story about Rangers fans being violent hooligans with no evidence as described above is a perfectly sound battle to pick.

'Keep on ignoring the big stuff' - what makes you think anyone is doing that? I'd be amazed if everyone has dropped everything to make this article, from what I believe it took one or two VBs a short time to research and compile.

Finally (and I dare say VB can speak for themselves on this) - what gives you the right to dictate what VB do and don't do? The battles they pick are for them to decide. I doubt they'll ever come to you asking for advice on that.

I have nothing against you being contrary and holding different opinions, but posts like this simply make you look like a troll.

Edit: Just for clarity, I have no involvement in this article and no input into what VB do or do not decide to do.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

This post is ridiculous in many ways, and convinces me that you are trolling here. I'll defend your right to a different opinion, and have done many times in the past, but you clearly had this reply half-written before you even opened the article.

Firstly, the state of Scottish football is completely irrelevant to this - you appear to have brought it up only to trivialise the subject of the article.

The battle for control of our club, similarly, is irrelevant and brought up for the same reason.

The oxygen of publicity has been given to this ned and his "zombie slaying" dog, it is absolutely right that this be challenged. Given that he has openly boasted about using this dog to attack Rangers fans, this context should be pointed out to the 'journalists' who penned this story without (it seems) even the simplest of checks.

As for this article being strategically unsound and tactically inept - perhaps you'd like to explain this part? VB's 'stated aims' include fighting back against false perceptions given of Rangers fans - this is absolutely within that stated aim, I would say. A front page story about Rangers fans attacking a dog, without a shred of evidence except the word of an openly bigoted ned who boasts about 'zombie slaying' with the dog in question - I'd say that should be challenged.

As for picking your battles, again I think a front page story about Rangers fans being violent hooligans with no evidence as described above is a perfectly sound battle to pick.

'Keep on ignoring the big stuff' - what makes you think anyone is doing that? I'd be amazed if everyone has dropped everything to make this article, from what I believe it took one or two VBs a short time to research and compile.

Finally (and I dare say VB can speak for themselves on this) - what gives you the right to dictate what VB do and don't do? The battles they pick are for them to decide. I doubt they'll ever come to you asking for advice on that.

I have nothing against you being contrary and holding different opinions, but posts like this simply make you look like a troll.

Edit: Just for clarity, I have no involvement in this article and no input into what VB do or do not decide to do.

I thought this post was going to have a happy ending.

[scarkev 3,540]

This post is ridiculous in many ways, and convinces me that you are trolling here. I'll defend your right to a different opinion, and have done many times in the past, but you clearly had this reply half-written before you even opened the article.

Firstly, the state of Scottish football is completely irrelevant to this - you appear to have brought it up only to trivialise the subject of the article.

The battle for control of our club, similarly, is irrelevant and brought up for the same reason.

The oxygen of publicity has been given to this ned and his "zombie slaying" dog, it is absolutely right that this be challenged. Given that he has openly boasted about using this dog to attack Rangers fans, this context should be pointed out to the 'journalists' who penned this story without (it seems) even the simplest of checks.

As for this article being strategically unsound and tactically inept - perhaps you'd like to explain this part? VB's 'stated aims' include fighting back against false perceptions given of Rangers fans - this is absolutely within that stated aim, I would say. A front page story about Rangers fans attacking a dog, without a shred of evidence except the word of an openly bigoted ned who boasts about 'zombie slaying' with the dog in question - I'd say that should be challenged.

As for picking your battles, again I think a front page story about Rangers fans being violent hooligans with no evidence as described above is a perfectly sound battle to pick.

'Keep on ignoring the big stuff' - what makes you think anyone is doing that? I'd be amazed if everyone has dropped everything to make this article, from what I believe it took one or two VBs a short time to research and compile.

Finally (and I dare say VB can speak for themselves on this) - what gives you the right to dictate what VB do and don't do? The battles they pick are for them to decide. I doubt they'll ever come to you asking for advice on that.

I have nothing against you being contrary and holding different opinions, but posts like this simply make you look like a troll.

Edit: Just for clarity, I have no involvement in this article and no input into what VB do or do not decide to do.

100% spot on BP....