Rangers hanging their fans out to dry (part 2)

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

Having read a bit more through the thread I think a lot of folk are being confused by the term “innocent until proven guilty”, and unless I’m mistaken, a lot of people are saying no action should be taken by the club until after a trial

The Club is under NO OBLIGATION to ban ANYONE. Even if they are convicted, even if theyre jailed, the Club has no legal obligation to ban them, plenty of people have been banned by the courts without the Club taking anything to do with with it. So the Club CHOSE to do this and the only reason they have to do so is to pander to the SFA. In 99% of cases the accused will be banned by the courts until their trial anyway so this is just the Club rubbing salt into the wound.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,547]

24 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

Having read a bit more through the thread I think a lot of folk are being confused by the term “innocent until proven guilty”, and unless I’m mistaken, a lot of people are saying no action should be taken by the club until after a trial - but that’s just nonsense.

 

To highlight it, just ask yourself, would you want your child to be taught by a teacher who’s been arrested but not yet been to trial for child pornography offences?

Or, would you want your doctor to continue working after being arrested - but not yet tried - with gross malpractice/negligence which led to fatalities?

Or how about those Canadian pilots - should they still be allowed to fly planes until they get their day in court?

 

Of course not.

 

So when Rangers ban a fan for being arrested at a Rangers game then I’m not about reach for my pitchfork and start shouting “down with the board”.

the teacher, the doctor and the pilots will be suspended with full pay pending an investigation or the result of the legal authorities investigation, chances are if a teacher is found with kiddy porn, doctor caused fatalities through his working practices, or they pilots been found way over the limit, the people in question will likely plead guilty, and even if they dont, it can be argued they are a considerable risk to persons safety within their profession

a football fan who ran onto the park (allegedly) who now sits up the back of the copland rear isnt exactly anywhere near these 3 examples is he

[The Godfather 71,896]

1 minute ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

the teacher, the doctor and the pilots will be suspended with full pay pending an investigation or the result of the legal authorities investigation, chances are if a teacher is found with kiddy porn, doctor caused fatalities through his working practices, or they pilots been found way over the limit, the people in question will likely plead guilty, and even if they dont, it can be argued they are a considerable risk to persons safety within their profession

a football fan who ran onto the park (allegedly) who now sits up the back of the copland rear isnt exactly anywhere near these 3 examples is he

Its' a quite frankly a ridiculous comparison to make.

[theclothmonster 1,707]

25 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

Having read a bit more through the thread I think a lot of folk are being confused by the term “innocent until proven guilty”, and unless I’m mistaken, a lot of people are saying no action should be taken by the club until after a trial - but that’s just nonsense.

 

To highlight it, just ask yourself, would you want your child to be taught by a teacher who’s been arrested but not yet been to trial for child pornography offences?

Or, would you want your doctor to continue working after being arrested - but not yet tried - with gross malpractice/negligence which led to fatalities?

Or how about those Canadian pilots - should they still be allowed to fly planes until they get their day in court?

 

Of course not.

 

So when Rangers ban a fan for being arrested at a Rangers game then I’m not about reach for my pitchfork and start shouting “down with the board”.

All of those examples show a clear threat to public safety and show no provocation for their alleged offences and don't fit in with the context of this discussion. Unless you think that there is a highly likely chance of away fans charging onto the pitch, attacking players and running over to taunt the home support at Ibrox? Of course not and you know it, but hey who am I to point out the fact that had the hivs fans supported their club in a manner not befitting a rancid junkie we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

[dougie76 15,359]

3 hours ago, Willis said:

Plenty on this forum as well have spent the last two years publicly sucking Kings cock, we'll see where their loyalties lie now, with some rich boardmember who only wants our money or the fans who love their Club and are unjustly banned, unfortunately I can guess where many of them will side

King is a fucking lying snake?

[trueblue 64 613]

The day after the final I started the thread "so proud of the bears who confronted them" or words to that effect. Iirc, I considered posting the thread for a few hours but had reservations about publicly defending actions which could be considered illegal. I am pretty certain I started the thread within minutes of reading the boards statement.

I spent a lot of that week watching videos posted by fans and I have no doubt in my mind that had the bears not went on to the park,  they junkies were coming into our end.

I still stand by the statement I made that day, it's a great pity the board don't.

[Smile 26,610]

25 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

Well my first attempt at putting over this point earlier in the thread wasn’t picked up so I thought a few easy to understand examples might help.

If you put your point across this way i can see why it wasn't picked up. We are discussing ordinary everyday Rangers supporters who feel they have been wronged. Paedophiles or Drunk Pilots who could have killed thousands it is not, I'm sure you can see the difference.

[AljayBoy 2,298]

13 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

the teacher, the doctor and the pilots will be suspended with full pay pending an investigation or the result of the legal authorities investigation, chances are if a teacher is found with kiddy porn, doctor caused fatalities through his working practices, or they pilots been found way over the limit, the people in question will likely plead guilty, and even if they dont, it can be argued they are a considerable risk to persons safety within their profession

a football fan who ran onto the park (allegedly) who now sits up the back of the copland rear isnt exactly anywhere near these 3 examples is he

 

It’s called an analogy, and I used extreme examples as a way of more clearly highlighting my point, that point being that it’s an accepted practice to take action against a person charged with a crime in advance of a judge/jury returning a verdict in a trial. It’s one thing to debate whether or not the action is justified but throwing in “innocent until proven guilty” as if that wins the argument is lazy at best, when as I’ve clearly (imo) shown that that argument isn’t always a ‘winner’.

 

The added stuff about pay, pension bla la bla is ridiculous to mention (which is why I didn’t) when compared to the football fan, so what you’ve done, knowingly or not, is put forward a straw man argument.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,686]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

You're correct. I am a cannabis user and and am a proponent for its legalisation. 

You are aware that doesn't make you a "junkie"? A "junkie" is usually someone with a heroin dependency (hence junkie as heroin is also known as "junk"). 

You are aware that just over a week after the final (and before they had appeared in court) Hibs had issued life bans to supporters?

 

 

All none prescription drugs make you a junkie justify it to yourself however you like but keep on topic particularly when its this serious

[Smile 26,610]

3 minutes ago, trueblue 64 said:

The day after the final I started the thread "so proud of the bears who confronted them" or words to that effect. Iirc, I considered posting the thread for a few hours but had reservations about publicly defending actions which could be considered illegal. I am pretty certain I started the thread within minutes of reading the boards statement.

I spent a lot of that week watching videos posted by fans and I have no doubt in my mind that had the bears not went on to the park,  they junkies were coming into our end.

I still stand by the statement I made that day, it's a great pity the board don't.

 

I noticed that day how many had commented had not been at the game and saw was a disaster it really was, they preferred to go by the cameras that showed nothing really.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Smile said:

If you put your point across this way i can see why it wasn't picked up. We are discussing ordinary everyday Rangers supporters who feel they have been wronged. Paedophiles or Drunk Pilots who could have killed thousands it is not, I'm sure you can see the difference.

You go to the pub and get into a scrap because some guy was "provoking you". Should the landlord wait until criminal proceedings are complete before banning you from his boozer? Or can he ban you without any care for the judicial process?

 

Would that scenario prejudice the legal process as has been claimed being banned from Ibrox would?

[theclothmonster 1,707]

2 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

 

It’s called an analogy, and I used extreme examples as a way of more clearly highlighting my point, that point being that it’s an accepted practice to take action against a person charged with a crime in advance of a judge/jury returning a verdict in a trial. It’s one thing to debate whether or not the action is justified but throwing in “innocent until proven guilty” as if that wins the argument is lazy at best, when as I’ve clearly (imo) shown that that argument isn’t always a ‘winner’.

 

The added stuff about pay, pension bla la bla is ridiculous to mention (which is why I didn’t) when compared to the football fan, so what you’ve done, knowingly or not, is put forward a straw man argument.

My dog keeps scratching his balls and its on this point I would like to argue that you are wrong good sir!

[Guest]

I notice theres quite a few posters who have remained silent on this issue who are normally the type to chime in every time King is criticised

[Ferris Bueller 1,569]

Maybe missed it in the many pages on here but how many guys have received a letter?

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

Kai

Do you mind if I use that letter image to highlight this issue ?

Please do mate. That's what it's there for.

[theclothmonster 1,707]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You go to the pub and get into a scrap because some guy was "provoking you". Should the landlord wait until criminal proceedings are complete before banning you from his boozer? Or can he ban you without any care for the judicial process?

 

Would that scenario prejudice the legal process as has been claimed being banned from Ibrox would?

I'd hope that his family wouldn't throw him out the house before being sure he was guilty of any alleged offense.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, theclothmonster said:

I'd hope that his family wouldn't throw him out the house before being sure he was guilty of any alleged offense.

It's not like a dad chucking his son out. These fans don't live in Ibrox and are not "family" per se but customers. 

What about the pub landlord? Should he wait until legal process is compete before issuing a ban from his premises?

[K.A.I 36,183]

54 minutes ago, AljayBoy said:

Having read a bit more through the thread I think a lot of folk are being confused by the term “innocent until proven guilty”, and unless I’m mistaken, a lot of people are saying no action should be taken by the club until after a trial - but that’s just nonsense.

 

To highlight it, just ask yourself, would you want your child to be taught by a teacher who’s been arrested but not yet been to trial for child pornography offences?

Or, would you want your doctor to continue working after being arrested - but not yet tried - with gross malpractice/negligence which led to fatalities?

Or how about those Canadian pilots - should they still be allowed to fly planes until they get their day in court?

 

Of course not.

 

So when Rangers ban a fan for being arrested at a Rangers game then I’m not about reach for my pitchfork and start shouting “down with the board”.

Fuck me ... that's one of the most shocking posts I've ever seen on here with the peadophile mention

Oh look who's "liked" it too. I give up.

[AljayBoy 2,298]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You go to the pub and get into a scrap because some guy was "provoking you". Should the landlord wait until criminal proceedings are complete before banning you from his boozer? Or can he ban you without any care for the judicial process?

 

Would that scenario prejudice the legal process as has been claimed being banned from Ibrox would?

 

Maybe i should started off with a pub analogy as I doubt there would have been a problem with folk seeing the comparison there!

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

5 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Please do mate. That's what it's there for.

Done and article written.

[theclothmonster 1,707]

Just now, The Dude said:

It's not like a dad chucking his son out. These fans don't live in Ibrox and are not "family" per se but customers. 

What about the pub landlord? Should he wait until legal process is compete before issuing a ban from his premises?

Last I checked the cup final was held at Hamdump so wouldn't the landlord be the SFA?

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, K.A.I said:

Fuck me ... that's one of the most shocking posts I've ever seen on here with the peadophile mention

Oh look who's "liked" it too. I give up.

Does innocent until proven guilty only apply when you want it to? 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, theclothmonster said:

Last I checked the cup final was held at Hamdump so wouldn't the landlord be the SFA?

No, the tickets were sold directly by the club under their T&C's (in addition to the ground regulations at Hampden)

[theclothmonster 1,707]

Just now, The Dude said:

No, the tickets were sold directly by the club under their T&C's (in addition to the ground regulations at Hampden)

So Rangers are a landlord that sold tickets for patrons to get into another landlords pub? Sorry if I seemed confused but you keep shifting the goalposts in this analogy of yours. Are the phaedophiles in the first landlords pub or the second?

[K.A.I 36,183]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Does innocent until proven guilty only apply when you want it to? 

Nupe but as said many times before across the two threads when someone think's they're clever making a stupid analogy about being suspended from work - if the guilt has still to be established you would be suspended on full pay.