Rangers hanging their fans out to dry (part 2)

[jintybear 8,536]

2 hours ago, RyanMac said:

180 degree u-turn 

 

I was about to post the same link.  My head is actually sore trying to understand his argument, still can't believe someone is that daft, he must be at the windup. 

 I'm thick as shit!! 

[jaywalker 377]

7 hours ago, Ozblue said:

It's an euphemism; which might sound "naff" to you, but it's a pertinent description of what this thread is about.

Btw! Have you ever been in the trenches?

Still haven't had an answer to how many fans were banned and for whether it was for offences of violence. 

As to whether I was ever "in the trenches", No I was in the Royal Navy, digging a hole in the engine room was frowned on.

[Ozblue 4,331]

3 minutes ago, jaywalker said:

Still haven't had an answer to how many fans were banned and for whether it was for offences of violence. 

As to whether I was ever "in the trenches", No I was in the Royal Navy, digging a hole in the engine room was frowned on.

i think the answer to your first sentence is that nobody knows for sure how many are banned, or for what particular offence, mate; so I guess we will have to wait on the club giving us that answer. The club won't differentiate  the offence;  If you are on the park for any reason, you are banned and you have no recourse to a hearing where you can explain the circumstances WHY you were on the park.

I can clearly see why being in the engine room with a laser cutter or an oxy-acetylene  torch might be frowned upon     

 

[AlBear. 8,499]

Am I too late for the bhoycott?

[BigDak 799]

3 hours ago, jaywalker said:

Still haven't had an answer to how many fans were banned and for whether it was for offences of violence. 

As to whether I was ever "in the trenches", No I was in the Royal Navy, digging a hole in the engine room was frowned on.

 

2 hours ago, Ozblue said:

i think the answer to your first sentence is that nobody knows for sure how many are banned, or for what particular offence, mate; so I guess we will have to wait on the club giving us that answer. The club won't differentiate  the offence;  If you are on the park for any reason, you are banned and you have no recourse to a hearing where you can explain the circumstances WHY you were on the park.

I can clearly see why being in the engine room with a laser cutter or an oxy-acetylene  torch might be frowned upon     

 

Funnily enough I couldn't find K.A.I's letter so I came back into this thread to ask what people had been banned for - being charged for alleged fighting or for allegedly simply being on the pitch?

If it's the former then I think to an extent the Club's hands are tied (despite the statement defending the fans a couple of days after the game) because being realistic in no world could they possibly defend not banning someone who's been done for assault (unless there was strong evidence showing they were actually defending someone else). But if it's also for the latter then (if you go along the lines that the Club has to be seen to be doing something) anything more than a token 1 or 2 game ban under the "indefinite period" is out of line. They can't release that statement then ban guys for a lengthy period simply for being on the pitch - they have no evidence that the guys were up to anything other than being on the pitch. I don't think hivs will be banning several thousand of their "fans" for being on the pitch.

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

The board might have their hands tied on the specific reason for banning these fans but I don't see why they cant categorically state that not one fan will be banned for merely being on the pitch. There stipulating its for a serious offence, what do they constitute as a serious offence. I for one do not regard defending innocent fans and players for that matter as a serious offence. 

[Ozblue 4,331]

1 hour ago, BigDak said:

 

Funnily enough I couldn't find K.A.I's letter so I came back into this thread to ask what people had been banned for - being charged for alleged fighting or for allegedly simply being on the pitch?

If it's the former then I think to an extent the Club's hands are tied (despite the statement defending the fans a couple of days after the game) because being realistic in no world could they possibly defend not banning someone who's been done for assault (unless there was strong evidence showing they were actually defending someone else). But if it's also for the latter then (if you go along the lines that the Club has to be seen to be doing something) anything more than a token 1 or 2 game ban under the "indefinite period" is out of line. They can't release that statement then ban guys for a lengthy period simply for being on the pitch - they have no evidence that the guys were up to anything other than being on the pitch. I don't think hivs will be banning several thousand of their "fans" for being on the pitch.

 

I think the club have got themselves into a pickle with how they have handled the entire affair. They have prejudged the fans already by banning them for an ALLEGED offence without knowing what the exact offence is;  Not given them a chance to defend themselves and arguably prejudiced the outcome of a legal trial.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 hour ago, Howsitgoing said:

The board might have their hands tied on the specific reason for banning these fans but I don't see why they cant categorically state that not one fan will be banned for merely being on the pitch. There stipulating its for a serious offence, what do they constitute as a serious offence. I for one do not regard defending innocent fans and players for that matter as a serious offence. 

It's not the banning we are angry about, it's the timing and the total lack of a policy to let the fans plead their case. Let the courts hand out banning orders and let the club refund them to be welcomed back once their ban is served. 

[The Dude 20,026]

7 minutes ago, Ozblue said:

I think the club have got themselves into a pickle with how they have handled the entire affair. They have prejudged the fans already by banning them for an ALLEGED offence without knowing what the exact offence is;  Not given them a chance to defend themselves and arguably prejudiced the outcome of a legal trial.

They've not prejudiced the outcome of a trial. There's no decision made by the club over the guilt of anyone charged an awaiting trial. If they had prejudiced it there would be a raft of convictions already sitting waiting to be overturned on appeal.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

It's not the banning we are angry about, it's the timing and the total lack of a policy to let the fans plead their case. Let the courts hand out banning orders and let the club refund them to be welcomed back once their ban is served. 

No club in the land would refund a ST forfeited after a court-issued banning order.

[Ozblue 4,331]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

They've not prejudiced the outcome of a trial. There's no decision made by the club over the guilt of anyone charged an awaiting trial. If they had prejudiced it there would be a raft of convictions already sitting waiting to be overturned on appeal.

I will bow to your superior knowledge about trials, Dude. Thanks for the advice.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No club in the land would refund a ST forfeited after a court-issued banning order.

I don't give a fuck what other clubs do, it's what we should do. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Ozblue said:

I will bow to your superior knowledge about trials, Dude. Thanks for the advice.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

I don't give a fuck what other clubs do, it's what we should do. 

We wouldn't and shouldn't refund any ST forfeited by a court banning order. It would also set a dangerous precedent where anyone banned by the courts would be entitled to claim a refund regardless of the reason they were banned. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No club in the land would refund a ST forfeited after a court-issued banning order.

At the very least they should give them the option to sell on their ticket and get some of their money back.

The Club are just taking their tickets, some which will be worth over 500 quid which is no small amount of money and then they're going to pocket the cash and no doubt sell the ticket on for another 500 odd quid

If you think that's an appropriate way for the Club to treat its fans then I'm baffled

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

We wouldn't and shouldn't refund any ST forfeited by a court banning order. It would also set a dangerous precedent where anyone banned by the courts would be entitled to claim a refund regardless of the reason they were banned. 

Again we should have a policy of treating each ban on a case by case basis, instead of just a fuck you your banned policy. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Willis said:

At the very least they should give them the option to sell on their ticket and get some of their money back.

The Club are just taking their tickets, some which will be worth over 500 quid which is no small amount of money and then they're going to pocket the cash and no doubt sell the ticket on for another 500 odd quid

If you think that's an appropriate way for the Club to treat its fans then I'm baffled

As an aside, believe it or not, selling your ST without the club's written consent is also a banning. 

I'm well aware how much a ST cost having just paid for mines and completely get that it's a fair chunk of cash but we're not talking about guys who have decided they don't fancy it anymore but guys banned by the court from attending. 

 

 

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They've not prejudiced the outcome of a trial. There's no decision made by the club over the guilt of anyone charged an awaiting trial. If they had prejudiced it there would be a raft of convictions already sitting waiting to be overturned on appeal.

I really don't think it helps.

Going up to plead your innocence yet your club have already banned you.

"I'm not a thief your honour, but my family have kicked me out the house incase I steal anything"

If Rangers don't trust someone who's been in their ground for X amount of years then why should a court of law.

Massive own goal by the club.

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Again we should have a policy of treating each ban on a case by case basis, instead of just a fuck you your banned policy. 

I don't think we have a fuck you your banned policy only because I know of at least one guy nicked last year at a game who wasn't banned. It seems the fuck you bit only applies to a tiny number who were arrested at the final. As it stands I don't know if these have even been issued to everyone arrested in relation to the final but may have only been issued to those charged with certain offences. If, as were told, the vast majority arrested are bears then there must be a good few more of these letters doing the rounds.

Maybe KAI could add a bit more info if he has any. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

As an aside, believe it or not, selling your ST without the club's written consent is also a banning. 

I'm well aware how much a ST cost having just paid for mines and completely get that it's a fair chunk of cash but we're not talking about guys who have decided they don't fancy it anymore but guys banned by the court from attending. 

 

 

They're not banned from the court tho are they? I swear you are fuckin at it

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, bombaybadboy08 said:

I really don't think it helps.

Going up to plead your innocence yet your club have already banned you.

"I'm not a thief your honour, but my family have kicked me out the house incase I steal anything"

If Rangers don't trust someone who's been in their ground for X amount of years then why should a court of law.

Massive own goal by the club.

If it was me I'd pretend I had no knowledge of my ban from the Club and if the court brought it up I'd say it must've got lost in the post or something. Bears up in court shouldn't mention the Club ban at all unless forced to

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Willis said:

They're not banned from the court tho are they? I swear you are fuckin at it

That's the context I replied to and even explicitly mentioned in my post. 

 

My own opinion is those banned by the club should remain so until the end of their legal proceedings. If they're cleared then they should have their ban lifted and ST returned. Whether the club does that or not is anyone's guess.

If guilty then tough titty if they lose their case.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, The Dude said:

I don't think we have a fuck you your banned policy only because I know of at least one guy nicked last year at a game who wasn't banned. It seems the fuck you bit only applies to a tiny number who were arrested at the final. As it stands I don't know if these have even been issued to everyone arrested in relation to the final but may have only been issued to those charged with certain offences. If, as were told, the vast majority arrested are bears then there must be a good few more of these letters doing the rounds.

Maybe KAI could add a bit more info if he has any. 

Again a simple right to put your case forward to the board is all I'm asking for and if the ban stands any money due to be returned. 

[Virtuoso 27,180]

22 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No club in the land would refund a ST forfeited after a court-issued banning order.

What if said season ticket was purchased after the person was charged - with Rangers being aware of this?

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

32 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

It's not the banning we are angry about, it's the timing and the total lack of a policy to let the fans plead their case. Let the courts hand out banning orders and let the club refund them to be welcomed back once their ban is served. 

I agree, it's an embarrassment that a small championship club can show a club the stature of Rangers the correct protocol when it comes to handling these matters. The head of Rangers safety and security needs taken to task regarding this.