Rangers hanging their fans out to dry (part 2)

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

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

Had a ban been issued by this point? If not, how would the website know not to accept my Rangers number? 

 

I do do see what you're getting at but, in all honesty, you would need to be able to prove that Rangers were aware of charges at the time of purchase/renewal, that the club had decided it was going to issue a ban and that they had deliberately decided not to communicate that until after they had renewed for it to stand up really. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, Howsitgoing said:

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. 

 

He needs sacked, but you have to ask if this was approved from above him and who took that decision. 

[TEFTONG 60,392]

5 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

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. 

This is the point of the argument that a few on here fail to grasp...Give the guys the opportunity to say their piece..If the ban stays in place then give them back their money..And advise them how long said ban will be and what conditions a renewal of said ST in the future will be..Morally correct and one could even suggest the proper Rangers Way of dealing with it..

Generic letters sent saying your banned and we keep your money is NOT right..It is beyond contempt and has shown this Board cares not a fuck about the very lifeblood that kept the Club going..

Very sad that looking good whilst stealing fans cash is considered right and proper by so called Rangers fans on here.. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, TEFTONG said:

This is the point of the argument that a few on here fail to grasp...Give the guys the opportunity to say their piece..If the ban stays in place then give them back their money..And advise them how long said ban will be and what conditions a renewal of said ST in the future will be..Morally correct and one could even suggest the proper Rangers Way of dealing with it..

Generic letters sent saying your banned and we keep your money is NOT right..It is beyond contempt and has shown this Board cares not a fuck about the very lifeblood that kept the Club going..

Very sad that looking good whilst stealing fans cash is considered right and proper by so called Rangers fans on here.. 

Spot on mate, too many people missing the point whether on purpose or just sheer stupidity it's hard to tell. 

[The Dude 20,026]

18 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.

To continue the thief analogy. I worked for a supermarket chain (apparently a former member here came in looking for me once) for years and whenever someone was caught shoplifting they were immediately banned. In some cases before they had even been arrested. Not once was it thrown out in court for being prejudiced by our banning. Other times it never even made court but they remain banned.

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

He needs sacked, but you have to ask if this was approved from above him and who took that decision. 

Shit rolls downhill I'm afraid. Someone needs sacked and he is the one that is responsible for sending out the letters. The board has went down in a lot of people's eyes regarding this but it will never bring their downfall and they have a lot of making up to do to prevent their downfall at a later date. 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

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. 

 

Hibs have banned fans "indefinitely" and "for life" too and had done so within a week of the final.

They have also banned fans who they have information which "infers" they were on the pitch until they come plead their case. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Hibs have banned fans "indefinitely" and "for life" too and had done so within a week of the final.

They have also banned fans who they have information which "infers" they were on the pitch until they come plead their case. 

Hibs had fans that attacked Rangers players in front of TV cameras, they really had no choice. There is no way hibs banned fans merely because of receiving information that their due to appear in court which that muppet in charge of Rangers security did as indicated on his letter. They analysed TV coverage and banned these fans due to having no choice. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Howsitgoing said:

Hibs had fans that attacked Rangers players in front of TV cameras, they really had no choice. There is no way hibs banned fans merely because of receiving information that their due to appear in court which that muppet in charge of Rangers security did as indicated on his letter. They analysed TV coverage and banned these fans due to having no choice. 

There's a letter from Hibs in one of these threads to their fans stating their membership (season ticket) is "on hold" as they have info inferring they were in the pitch. 

Is banning someone because you seen them do it on TV footage despite them not being arrested more acceptable than banning them for being arrested? 

[Big Al 55 9,291]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

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

I wonder how many would have sold ST, knowing the owner would never be able to use it.

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

I wonder how many would have sold ST, knowing the owner would never be able to use it.

Without knowing when they were arrested, when the club was informed and when they were issued with a ban it's quite a leap tbh.

[Big Al 55 9,291]

14 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Without knowing when they were arrested, when the club was informed and when they were issued with a ban it's quite a leap tbh.

Depends on your pov I suppose. It's not be proven I agree...but then the club didn't wait until guilt was proven either.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

36 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Hibs have banned fans "indefinitely" and "for life" too and had done so within a week of the final.

They have also banned fans who they have information which "infers" they were on the pitch until they come plead their case. 

I'm glad you agree on the "until they come to plead their case". That's the exact point that shows that this small championship club has showing Rangers on the correct protocols. I hope you also come to terms that the rest of your comments are also flawed. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Howsitgoing said:

I'm glad you agree on the "until they come to plead their case". That's the exact point that shows that this small championship club has showing Rangers on the correct protocols. I hope you also come to terms that the rest of your comments are also flawed. 

That's what the Hibs letter says.

Hibs have followed the same process as we have except those who aren't facing criminal charges are still at being banned if Hibernian have info "inferring" they were in the pitch. I'm not aware of Rangers banning anyone who wasn't, at the very least, arrested. 

Comparing the two, only one club is banning fans who haven't been arrested. 

[gogzy 31,195]

On 27/07/2016 at 2:38 PM, 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?

Not the worst analogy,  what if the person that he banned had paid 500 quid up front for drink?

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, gogzy said:

Not the worst analogy,  what if the person that he banned had paid 500 quid up front for drink?

Couldn't care less. You could come through with a trolley stacked to the gills, if you get to the door and a fillet steak falls out your jacket you're banned. And then the cops will be called, then it's up to the PF to decide whether they want to pursue it further. Either way, you're going somewhere else for your shopping.

 

EDIT: I should add in that I don't have the onus to prove guilt as a business. If I decide I don't want you to come into my business then that's up to me. We've banned people for being aggressive to staff (no idea if it went to court or not), shopflifting, just being wee dicks and annoying other customers regularly and even one or two for shooting up in the toilets.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

That's what the Hibs letter says.

Hibs have followed the same process as we have except those who aren't facing criminal charges are still at being banned if Hibernian have info "inferring" they were in the pitch. I'm not aware of Rangers banning anyone who wasn't, at the very least, arrested. 

Comparing the two, only one club is banning fans who haven't been arrested. 

That's almost stipulating that you feel Rangers fans are equally to blame in regards for the trouble that occurred. Surely you can see if merely for the fact that there was at least 10 times the amount of hibs fans on the pitch that the instigators regarding this are hibs. There always has to be an instigator then the other party has to held responsible in regards to using appropriate measures for self defence. Rangers fans entering the pitch did so for self defence. And in my eyes considering the amount of hibs thugs on the pitch used reasonable methods. Is it then fair to ban the brave fans that protected the vast majority of rangers fans? Especially without giving them any recourse to defend themselves. 

[Captain Hilts 12,819]

9 minutes ago, gogzy said:

Not the worst analogy,  what if the person that he banned had paid 500 quid up front for drink?

And what if the pub landlord had publicly supported the guy in the scrap and said anyone would've done the same in that situation? 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

That's almost stipulating that you feel Rangers fans are equally to blame in regards for the trouble that occurred. Surely you can see if merely for the fact that there was at least 10 times the amount of hibs fans on the pitch that the instigators regarding this are hibs. There always has to be an instigator then the other party has to held responsible in regards to using appropriate measures for self defence. Rangers fans entering the pitch did so for self defence. And in my eyes considering the amount of hibs thugs on the pitch used reasonable methods. Is it then fair to ban the brave fans that protected the vast majority of rangers fans? Especially without giving them any recourse to defend themselves. 

That's nowhere close to stipulating anything of the sort.

I'm not going to get into the motivation of why Rangers fans went onto the pitch. I don't doubt some had "noble" intentions but I wouldn't be shocked if at least a few saw an opportunity...

I'd be interested to know the specifics of what those who have been banned are accused of. Is it just going onto the pitch? Or is it more serious charges they face?

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

That's nowhere close to stipulating anything of the sort.

I'm not going to get into the motivation of why Rangers fans went onto the pitch. I don't doubt some had "noble" intentions but I wouldn't be shocked if at least a few saw an opportunity...

I'd be interested to know the specifics of what those who have been banned are accused of. Is it just going onto the pitch? Or is it more serious charges they face?

Has to be a more serious charge or the board are being even more hypocritical by not banning everyone who went on the pitch to protect us. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Has to be a more serious charge or the board are being even more hypocritical by not banning everyone who went on the pitch to protect us. 

So, if it's not everyone (which means it's not just a fuck you youre banned policy) then maybe the club feel they have some justification in banning them. If it was just a case of fuck you you're banned surely every single bear arrested (regardless of what happened next) would be in possession of one of these letters.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

So, if it's not everyone (which means it's not just a fuck you youre banned policy) then maybe the club feel they have some justification in banning them. If it was just a case of fuck you you're banned surely every single bear arrested (regardless of what happened next) would be in possession of one of these letters.

It is a fuck you your banned policy because any fan issued with a ban has no recourse to offer his side of the story. 

How do you know every Bear who was arrested isn't banned? Do we even know how many Bears got the knock on the door? 

Again you seem to think we are against a ban which is wrong, the club should've let the courts hand out the bans. 

[The Dude 20,026]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

It is a fuck you your banned policy because any fan issued with a ban has no recourse to offer his side of the story. 

How do you know every Bear who was arrested isn't banned? Do we even know how many Bears got the knock on the door? 

Again you seem to think we are against a ban which is wrong, the club should've let the courts hand out the bans. 

I don't know that which is why I asked if every bear arrested had had a letter. According to this place it's the vast majority of the 50 or so arrested. Unless that's just made up. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

I don't know that which is why I asked if every bear arrested had had a letter. According to this place it's the vast majority of the 50 or so arrested. Unless that's just made up. 

I'm sure the transparent board will be along anytime to give us the full number. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

I'm sure the transparent board will be along anytime to give us the full number. 

Why would it be up to the board to report how many were arrested? What a bizarre suggestion.