More mhedia lies exposed by VB !

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

3 minutes ago, Willis said:

Say what you like about VBs but this mhanky bint just tried to tell thousands of people that chanting a sectarian slur was acceptable to the police, this is inciting offensive behaviour at a football game and she should be convicted like many who have got the same for singing a song. Sadly that will be ignored, bit gladly the VBs were there to do all they could do and at least expose her as a bitter Tim liar.

If only some in the courts and police put in half as much efforts in their jobs as VBs do in their own time these people would be put in their place

But freedom of the press and all that. We can't be upsetting these fine upstanding journalists by asking for the truth

[Guest]

Just now, Corky True Legend said:

But freedom of the press and all that. We can't be upsetting these fine upstanding journalists by asking for the truth

But what if the press released a headline saying Cannabis/Guns/Prositution etc was legal? Surely they'd be taken to task over that, how is this any different?

She says W, X, and Y are banned but Z isnt, implying its allowed.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

2 minutes ago, Willis said:

But what if the press released a headline saying Cannabis/Guns/Prositution etc was legal? Surely they'd be taken to task over that, how is this any different?

She says W, X, and Y are banned but Z isnt, implying its allowed.

You don't get irony, do you?

[Guest]

Just now, Corky True Legend said:

You don't get irony, do you?

I know you were agreeing with me just wanted to point out the argument or whatever. Settle down now bby

[K.A.I 36,183]

9 hours ago, GrandSuckMaster said:

Apathy is great for your by the way. I honestly don't give a flying f*ck what the media say and the Scottish football agenda against us is massively exaggerated and is because we are the biggest club, it happens almost everywhere. I like football and beer, Rangers make me happy, that is my agenda.

Well seen "The Dude" liked that post of yours btw - speaks volumes about him too. Not even surprising.

[The Dude 20,026]

6 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Well seen "The Dude" liked that post of yours btw - speaks volumes about him too. Not even surprising.

In what way does it speak volumes of me?

 

Quite simply I don't buy into the idea there's a widespread anti-Rangers conspiracy amongst the media in Scotland. Of course, instead of greeting about it on a forum you could complain to IPSO about it. But then, why bother complaining to the media watchdog about a perceived media bias. Crazy suggestion on my part.

We say the Suns anti Rangers and pro celtic. Celtic fans say its anti celtic and pro Rangers.

We call the Daily Record the Daily Rhebel, they call it the Daily Ranger.

It's almost as if folk see what they want to see.

[K.A.I 36,183]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

In what way does it speak volumes of me?

 

Quite simply I don't buy into the idea there's a widespread anti-Rangers conspiracy amongst the media in Scotland. Of course, instead of greeting about it on a forum you could complain to IPSO about it. But then, why bother complaining to the media watchdog about a perceived media bias. Crazy suggestion on my part.

We say the Suns anti Rangers and pro celtic. Celtic fans say its anti celtic and pro Rangers.

We call the Daily Record the Daily Rhebel, they call it the Daily Ranger.

It's almost as if folk see what they want to see.

Again, like that fenian troll whos post you liked you've just validated my point with that bit in bold. I know you think you are some sort of aspiring jounro because of a wee monthly shoot column and some other bits but you seem the type that is blinded by the hatred for us in the media and Scottish society in general because it might hinder your quest for the top.

Like so many so-called "Rangers men" out there. Principles goes out the window and instead you'd rather snipe at people who I'd personally consider much better Rangers men than yourself in the VB's.

[The Dude 20,026]

17 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Again, like that fenian troll whos post you liked you've just validated my point with that bit in bold. I know you think you are some sort of aspiring jounro because of a wee monthly shoot column and some other bits but you seem the type that is blinded by the hatred for us in the media and Scottish society in general because it might hinder your quest for the top.

Like so many so-called "Rangers men" out there. Principles goes out the window and instead you'd rather snipe at people who I'd personally consider much better Rangers men than yourself in the VB's.

What bit in bold?

The hatred that celtic fans claim exists towards them? Aye ok then. Big teams all across the planet think everyone's out to get them. It doesn't make it even close to being true.

If the press hate us so much, why do we have agreements in place where we receive hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising in the Scottish press in exchange for a few snaps and soundbites? IF they really hated us, they continue with their anti-Rangers rhetoric AND charge us for the ad space. Win win for the bias media, no?

If the press hate us, why do guys like Gary Ralston give up massive chunks of their time to write books about things like the Gallant Pioneers?

If the press hate us so much why do you give a fuck what they say?

Who have I sniped at? I hadn't posted in the thread until I was mentioned by name by you.

What is a "much better Rangers man"? How do you define such a nonsense?

Given my stated aim is that I'd much rather work for Rangers than any media outlet I'm not sure where my being "blinded" would stop my "quest for the top"? (what a fucking ridiculous phrase tbh)

Ah principles. tell me, what do you know of my principles based off liking a post on a football forum?

 

PS. My Shoot column is fortnightly. I work freelance for a national group of local papers and write for a Rangers fans magazine and also a fans website. In addition to that I've also worked for a number of places not related to Rangers, including covering MLS, youth football, women's football and a few bits and pieces for the SFA. I'm not sure how else you would define an "aspiring journo".

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

What bit in bold?

The hatred that celtic fans claim exists towards them? Aye ok then. Big teams all across the planet think everyone's out to get them. It doesn't make it even close to being true.

If the press hate us so much, why do we have agreements in place where we receive hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising in the Scottish press in exchange for a few snaps and soundbites? IF they really hated us, they continue with their anti-Rangers rhetoric AND charge us for the ad space. Win win for the bias media, no?

If the press hate us, why do guys like Gary Ralston give up massive chunks of their time to write books about things like the Gallant Pioneers?

If the press hate us so much why do you give a fuck what they say?

Who have I sniped at? I hadn't posted in the thread until I was mentioned by name by you.

What is a "much better Rangers man"? How do you define such a nonsense?

Given my stated aim is that I'd much rather work for Rangers than any media outlet I'm not sure where my being "blinded" would stop my "quest for the top"? (what a fucking ridiculous phrase tbh)

Ah principles. tell me, what do you know of my principles based off liking a post on a football forum?

 

PS. My Shoot column is fortnightly. I work freelance for a national group of local papers and write for a Rangers fans magazine and also a fans website. I'm not sure how else you would define an "aspiring journo".

1- Those agreements you mention for free adverts benefit the press as much as us. They will do the same thing with the tarriers too.

2- Gary Ralston is the type of person I am talking about. I don't give 2 fucks about his Galant Pioneer's book. Have you seen him write an article saying we never cheated with EBT's, for example? or when his media pals round on us for our singing point out that Loyalist songs without the add-on's aren't illegal?

3- I give a fuck what they say because their lies and angles cause us great damage. The Sun in question in this article perfect example, as I mentioned earlier. Basically telling people it's fine to call us H*** when no such directive has ever been made. Or the BBC calling us a new club or employing people on their airwaves who can call us cheats and make factually incorrect programmes about us.

4- You snipe in every single VB thread praising them. Even if you say nothing you still give out the snidey little 'virtual hawners' by ways of liking the odd balls who feel the need to criticise them.

5- A much better Rangers man, to me, is people who dedicated time and money and stick their neck on the line doing what they do compared to doing what you do - you, along with 2/3 others on here are amongst the most divisive people I've seen online ever - across all sorts of forums not just footballing ones.

[The Dude 20,026]

15 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

1- Those agreements you mention for free adverts benefit the press as much as us. They will do the same thing with the tarriers too.

2- Gary Ralston is the type of person I am talking about. I don't give 2 fucks about his Galant Pioneer's book. Have you seen him write an article saying we never cheated with EBT's, for example? or when his media pals round on us for our singing point out that Loyalist songs without the add-on's aren't illegal?

3- I give a fuck what they say because their lies and angles cause us great damage. The Sun in question in this article perfect example, as I mentioned earlier. Basically telling people it's fine to call us H*** when no such directive has ever been made. Or the BBC calling us a new club or employing people on their airwaves who can call us cheats and make factually incorrect programmes about us.

4- You snipe in every single VB thread praising them. Even if you say nothing you still give out the snidey little 'virtual hawners' by ways of liking the odd balls who feel the need to criticise them.

5- A much better Rangers man, to me, is people who dedicated time and money and stick their neck on the line doing what they do compared to doing what you do - you, along with 2/3 others on here are amongst the most divisive people I've seen online ever - across all sorts of forums not just footballing ones.

1. In what way do they benefit the press? A couple soundbites and a photo of a player holding an add for match tickets, season books or a new shirt doesn't tend to shift units.

2. I've never seen lots of people say we didn't cheat using EBT's. I've also not seen them say we DID cheat using EBT's. (a prime example of seeing what you want to see)

3. Here's a direct quote from the Sun article: “In terms of specific words, H** has not been classed as offensive but we will look at the context.” That is the same as applies to EVERY phrase. simply uttering the word fenian isn't a criminal offence either. Are the Sun telling people its fine to call folk fenians?

4. Like this one? "virtual hawners"? The fuck even is that?

5. "Dedicated time and money doing what they do". See these articles I write, the interviews that I do, the features I write and the other things I've done do you think that maybe, they involved me dedicating my time and money? Travelling across the country to attend games, interview people, organising an award in honour of the oldest living Rangers player. Have I a magic time machine that allows me to do all these things in the blink of an eye? Because if I did it would make things a whole lot easier than trying to do it all in addition to working full time away from being an "aspiring journo". I'm one of the most divisive people youve ever seen online? What utter pish. Seriously, that's utterly ridiculous. I'd be amazed if I'm one of the most divisive posters on this board never mind the entire fucking internet.

[K.A.I 36,183]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

1. In what way do they benefit the press? A couple soundbites and a photo of a player holding an add for match tickets, season books or a new shirt doesn't tend to shift units.

2. I've never seen lots of people say we didn't cheat using EBT's. I've also not seen them say we DID cheat using EBT's. (a prime example of seeing what you want to see)

3. Here's a direct quote from the Sun article: “In terms of specific words, H** has not been classed as offensive but we will look at the context.” That is the same as applies to EVERY phrase. simply uttering the word fenian isn't a criminal offence either. Are the Sun telling people its fine to call folk fenians?

4. Like this one? "virtual hawners"? The fuck even is that?

5. "Dedicated time and money doing what they do". See these articles I write, the interviews that I do, the features I write and the other things I've done do you think that maybe, they involved me dedicating my time and money? Travelling across the country to attend games, interview people, organising an award in honour of the oldest living Rangers player. Have I a magic time machine that allows me to do all these things in the blink of an eye? Because if I did it would make things a whole lot easier than trying to do it all in addition to working full time away from being an "aspiring journo". I'm one of the most divisive people youve ever seen online? What utter pish. Seriously, that's utterly ridiculous. I'd be amazed if I'm one of the most divisive posters on this board never mind the entire fucking internet.

Ah so the gutter press give Rangers hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising because they love us? with no benefit to them?

Number 2 lmao you've never seen them defend us, but never seen them say we DIDN'T cheat either? some Rangers men them in the press. That's a prime example of what I'm on about.

3- You seriously sticking up for The Sun's disgraceful article by going down the route of semantics about your perception of the tone and reading between the lines you are making my initial post towards you more and more vindicated in my eyes. So again, thanks.

5- What have you done exactly? you done something where you phoned someone up. Kudos. Outwith that? your average VB pisses over you in terms of what he does for the club and the fans named compared to, for example, your blaring obvious Shoot articles. I'm not knocking you for writing an articlle for Shoot I'm using it as an example when you even attempt to justify yourself. You are one of the most divisive people I've ever encounted. You are a twisted bastard. I'll make allowances for it due to your mental condition (which I won't slate you for) but obviously explains some of times you feel the need to dive into stuff and twist.

[The Dude 20,026]

17 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Ah so the gutter press give Rangers hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising because they love us? with no benefit to them?

Number 2 lmao you've never seen them defend us, but never seen them say we DIDN'T cheat either? some Rangers men them in the press. That's a prime example of what I'm on about.

3- You seriously sticking up for The Sun's disgraceful article by going down the route of semantics about your perception of the tone and reading between the lines you are making my initial post towards you more and more vindicated in my eyes. So again, thanks.

5- What have you done exactly? you done something where you phoned someone up. Kudos. Outwith that? your average VB pisses over you in terms of what he does for the club and the fans named compared to, for example, your blaring obvious Shoot articles. I'm not knocking you for writing an articlle for Shoot I'm using it as an example when you even attempt to justify yourself. You are one of the most divisive people I've ever encounted. You are a twisted bastard. I'll make allowances for it due to your mental condition (which I won't slate you for) but obviously explains some of times you feel the need to dive into stuff and twist.

I see you're not actually reading what I'm posting unsurprisingly. They get a few sound bites and snaps to fill some column inches and get access to the players. That's their benefit. 

Why would someone need to state what is obvious and has been determined by a law Lord? Does a journos opinion hold more weight? 

I quoted what they said. Not what I think they said. There was no point where they gave people free reign to call Rangers fans H***. Despite you wanting to claim they did.

What have I done? Raised money for charities associated with Rangers, arranged for the annual prize awarded by the school Bobby Brown taught at whilst playing for the club to carry his name and paid for a new trophy from my pocket, no group fundraisers, straight from my wages with nothing in return. Not even an embroidered t-shirt. 

You'll make allowances for my "mental condition"? Please elaborate on my mental condition. It seems to be one of these go to things yet no one can ever actually explain what my "mental condition" is. I'm  certain you'll fall into the same category. 

 

Ps. 4 comes between 3 and 5

[thistleman 52]

11 hours ago, GrandSuckMaster said:

This "fine group" can get on with whatever they want. I just wish they didn't exist as I feel they are pedantic. Football is about going to a game with your mates and having a good time, it is not points scoring or being hurt by what some numpty said in a rag. Fan groups have their purpose, but VBs are just blokes seeking to be considered most staunch and to get some attention imo.

the only people i know who wish vangaurd bears did not exist are people who seek to damage our club are you one of them, also when it comes to attention seeking  from what i have read it does not seem that vbs are attenion seekers so they defend our club and fans seek out people who print lies and expose them seek out the haters of our club and expose them i don,t see  the need for negative posts when someone or group does something positive so i can only assume that you have your own agenda or you might just be an attention seeker or a beast from the east  maybe they have upset you in some way who knows. and well done vangaurd bears great article see how easy that was

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

2 hours ago, Corky True Legend said:

You don't get irony, do you?

I thought it was more sarcasm with a twist of irony.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

What bit in bold?

The hatred that celtic fans claim exists towards them? Aye ok then. Big teams all across the planet think everyone's out to get them. It doesn't make it even close to being true.

If the press hate us so much, why do we have agreements in place where we receive hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising in the Scottish press in exchange for a few snaps and soundbites? IF they really hated us, they continue with their anti-Rangers rhetoric AND charge us for the ad space. Win win for the bias media, no?

If the press hate us, why do guys like Gary Ralston give up massive chunks of their time to write books about things like the Gallant Pioneers?

If the press hate us so much why do you give a fuck what they say?

Who have I sniped at? I hadn't posted in the thread until I was mentioned by name by you.

What is a "much better Rangers man"? How do you define such a nonsense?

Given my stated aim is that I'd much rather work for Rangers than any media outlet I'm not sure where my being "blinded" would stop my "quest for the top"? (what a fucking ridiculous phrase tbh)

Ah principles. tell me, what do you know of my principles based off liking a post on a football forum?

 

PS. My Shoot column is fortnightly. I work freelance for a national group of local papers and write for a Rangers fans magazine and also a fans website. In addition to that I've also worked for a number of places not related to Rangers, including covering MLS, youth football, women's football and a few bits and pieces for the SFA. I'm not sure how else you would define an "aspiring journo".

Very easy Dude to pick one or two examples of positive stuff from the press - whilst ignoring the considerable damage done by elements of the media such as Speirs, Cosgrove, Anna Smith, Greenslade, English and BBC Scotland.

And of course the editors and producers of the aforementioned who allow such work to be published/produced.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, D'Artagnan said:

Very easy Dude to pick one or two examples of positive stuff from the press - whilst ignoring the considerable damage done by elements of the media such as Speirs, Cogrove, Anna Smith, Greenslade, English and BBC Scotland.

There's always going to be some who write thing that don't jive with the feeling of the Rangers support. That's entirely normal. Some will push the boundaries of that, and with regards to BBC Scotland they've been slapped down by the BBC trust regards their coverage of us. 

Greenslade, Smith and Spiers are clowns who's opinions, in my opinion at least, aren't worth the paper they're written on. 

Spiers in particular has been shown up that many times that anyone who takes what he says remotely seriously aren't doing so from a balanced viewpoint. 

If people want to go down the "anti Rangers bias" route then there's only so much that can be done. Mainly by complaining at every indiscretion to the editors and also IPSO. Simply bleating on forums does nothing to change anything. 

Theres always an alternative though D. There are many websites etc which write positively of all things Rangers. If Rangers fans were to get firmly behind those (and I don't necessarily mean my stuff although it'd be nice) there would be much more scope for there to be positive coverage of us. Guys like you, John DC Gow, the guys that were behind the CRO all put out great content but many would rather revel in the negative stuff, which is read by an ever diminishing pool, than look to support pro-Rangers 'outlets'.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

17 minutes ago, The Dude said:

There's always going to be some who write thing that don't jive with the feeling of the Rangers support. That's entirely normal. Some will push the boundaries of that, and with regards to BBC Scotland they've been slapped down by the BBC trust regards their coverage of us. 

Greenslade, Smith and Spiers are clowns who's opinions, in my opinion at least, aren't worth the paper they're written on. 

Spiers in particular has been shown up that many times that anyone who takes what he says remotely seriously aren't doing so from a balanced viewpoint. 

If people want to go down the "anti Rangers bias" route then there's only so much that can be done. Mainly by complaining at every indiscretion to the editors and also IPSO. Simply bleating on forums does nothing to change anything. 

Theres always an alternative though D. There are many websites etc which write positively of all things Rangers. If Rangers fans were to get firmly behind those (and I don't necessarily mean my stuff although it'd be nice) there would be much more scope for there to be positive coverage of us. Guys like you, John DC Gow, the guys that were behind the CRO all put out great content but many would rather revel in the negative stuff, which is read by an ever diminishing pool, than look to support pro-Rangers 'outlets'.

Firstly Im not talking about articles which dont "jive" Im talking about the downright lies we have been subjected to over the years.

Ive complained to IPSO previously when the Sunday Herald was fabricating stories and forced them to print a retraction & apology for making up lies about our fans. (the offending journo is now editor of that newspaper - didnt seem to do his career any harm)

BBC Scotland and their broadcasters have been the subject of numerous complaints with little effect. They were only forced to withdraw the new club nonsense when the complaints escalated to the final tier - The BBC Trust.

Articles read on Rangers websites and magazines are limted to a specific audience - Rangers fans. Lies pedalled by the nation's publilcly funded broadcast company reach a far larger and varied audience.

Going back to the VB expose` in this thread - do you not think at  time when Plod are urging OF fans to think, act & behave responsibly that journalists should be doing the same ?

 

[pcbear 10,913]

29 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Very easy Dude to pick one or two examples of positive stuff from the press - whilst ignoring the considerable damage done by elements of the media such as Speirs, Cosgrove, Anna Smith, Greenslade, English and BBC Scotland.

And of course the editors and producers of the aforementioned who allow such work to be published/produced.

This is the one that puzzles me, she is not talking shite to up her profile on a forum amongst other like minded folk where you are your own editor, this lie/lies must have been first typed by the journo, then knowing it to be complete pish, passed on to whoever then maybe again, someone must have given it the green light for publication, that's just wrong.

[Siam69 26,941]

To me, anyone who doesn't see the potential damage done by the many articles containing lies, slander, prejudice etc, and designed to tarnish or just generally spin a negative on both our Club and support, doesn't really understand what just happened to us, especially from when Murray was trying to sell, or the motivation behind a lot of it

Whether it was from certain elements in the mainstream media, bloggers, RTC etc, stuff picked by MSM from such, lots of lies were and still are treated as truth.  It certainly did, and still does damage the Club and support.

I've said it many times on here, I can never understand Bears who say things like ignore them, don't give them the exposure, whether it's articles like this thread, Mad Phillip of the many names, John James or whatever other mad taigs. These Cunts are going to do it anyway, it got to the stage that any obsessed rocket could make up any old shite and lies, as they knew they wouldn't get challenged. To me, they need to be challenged and exposed at every turn, whether it's the VB's, PZJ, the Board or whomever, and as seen with Spiers, let them know there will be consequences for their lies.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, D'Artagnan said:

Firstly Im not talking about articles which dont "jive" Im talking about the downright lies we have been subjected to over the years.

Ive complained to IPSO previously when the Sunday Herald was fabricating stories and forced them to print a retraction & apology for making up lies about our fans.

BBC Scotland and their broadcasters have been the subject of numerous complaints with little effect. They were only forced to withdraw the new club nonsense when the complaints escalated to the final tier - The BBC Trust.

Articles read on Rangers websites and magazines are limted to a speccific audeince - Rangers fans. Lies pedalled by the nation's publilcly funded broadcast company reach a far larger and varied audience.

Going back to the VB expose` in this thread - do you not think at  time when Plod are urging OF fans to think, act & behave responsibly that journalists should be doing the same ?

 

Some have been challenged by the club, others in the grand scheme of things are fairly irrelevant. WRT the Sun story I'm fairly sure it'll come down to semantics. The sun says they "will" brief and plod say they "haven't" but not that they "wont".

Fair play to you for complaining, but with all respect, one complaint is small beer. If there are downright lies we should be bombarding them with complaints. Not one or two of them.

Isn't that exactly why the BBC trust exists? If people are unhappy with the resolution at the earlier stages the trust is the final step of the process, much in the same way that a newspaper editor may not uphold a complaint but IPSO would?

Papers are dying a death in print form. The Herald's circulation is now lower than an average gate at celtic park. The Rangers fans who DO try get work with these outlets are often chastised for doing so to the point where it kinda becomes a continual cycle. Just a wee example. Because I'm trying to make a few quid writing about football it's apparently made me "blinded to the hatred".

Absolutely. They should always be responsible in what is published. When things are published which are inappropriate, inflammatory or downright lies should be challenged.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Some have been challenged by the club, others in the grand scheme of things are fairly irrelevant. WRT the Sun story I'm fairly sure it'll come down to semantics. The sun says they "will" brief and plod say they "haven't" but not that they "wont".

Fair play to you for complaining, but with all respect, one complaint is small beer. If there are downright lies we should be bombarding them with complaints. Not one or two of them.

Isn't that exactly why the BBC trust exists? If people are unhappy with the resolution at the earlier stages the trust is the final step of the process, much in the same way that a newspaper editor may not uphold a complaint but IPSO would?

Papers are dying a death in print form. The Herald's circulation is now lower than an average gate at celtic park. The Rangers fans who DO try get work with these outlets are often chastised for doing so to the point where it kinda becomes a continual cycle. Just a wee example. Because I'm trying to make a few quid writing about football it's apparently made me "blinded to the hatred".

Absolutely. They should always be responsible in what is published. When things are published which are inappropriate, inflammatory or downright lies should be challenged.

BBC Scotland are the least popular of the Regional BBC Services - (customer satisfaction a few years ago - I dont have the link)

Rather than ask the question about why the BBC Trust exist I think it is better to ask why the BBC exist - to provide accurate, unbiased factual reporting. Spence, Spiers and numerous others have been allowed to use BBC Scotland as a platform to damage our club.

The very fact that a complaint had to progress through the various tiers of management  at Pacific Quay before it was referred to their Trust who upheld the complaint  suggests to me that the anti-Rangers agenda is more widespread than you give it credit for.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

Number of interesting views on the topic of Rangers and the media.  Many of the articles about us are negative, then there a good number if negative articles about the aigs also.  We and them sell copy in Scotland, that is s a simple and undeniable fact.

Then most posters appear to know that because you all appear up to date on what these gutter rags are writing.  

Therein lies the problem, as long as they have people buying print copy or giving them hits online then you are empowering them.

Stop going to their websites and certainly do not buy their paper versions.  Do that and their advertising revenue stream will dry up and hit them where it hurts.

A wise man once said, if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Given most of the stories are factually inaccurate what would you be missing?

 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

BBC Scotland are the least popular of the Regional BBC Services - (customer satisfaction a few years ago - I dont have the link)

Rather than ask the question about why the BBC Trust exist I think it is better to ask why the BBC exist - to provide accurate, unbiased factual reporting. Spence, Spiers and numerous others have been allowed to use BBC Scotland as a platform to damage our club.

The very fact that a complaint had to progress through the various tiers of management  at Pacific Quay before it was referred to their Trust who upheld the complaint  suggests to me that the anti-Rangers agenda is more widespread than you give it credit for.

Surely that would apply to any group who have had to take a complaint to the Trust after being rebuffed at lower levels?

When it comes to the BBC in particular, there's lots of groups who think it's "anti-(my group)" whether its Scottish Nationalists, the left wing, right wing, LGBT, heterosexuals, whites, blacks, etc,.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Surely that would apply to any group who have had to take a complaint to the Trust after being rebuffed at lower levels?

When it comes to the BBC in particular, there's lots of groups who think it's "anti-(my group)" whether its Scottish Nationalists, the left wing, right wing, LGBT, heterosexuals, whites, blacks, etc,.

Dude

Im not going to start posting the numerous transgressions of this organisation against our club - Id be here all night.

I think there is overwhelming evidence of an anti-Rangers bias running through this organisation.

Ps and the board seem to agree !!

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

Dude

Im not going to start posting the numerous transgressions of this organisation against our club - Id be here all night.

I think there is overwhelming evidence of an anti-Rangers bias running through this organisation.

And every time it's been pursued they've been slapped down by the trust. When it hasn't then they haven't. Which comes back to my original point. Instead of bleating about it on forums and achieving nothing, complain.