Keith Jackson Banned From Ibrox

[The Dude 20,026]

22 minutes ago, psb07158 said:

Wonder who will be the board's mouthpiece now 

It's been the Sun for months

[scottyscott1963 18,418]

Me personally could fill a fleet of buses of cunts I would like barred.

[theiconicman 2,992]

2 hours ago, chris182 said:

A balanced, unbiased, free press should be able to print whatever they want if it's in the interests of the public.

The press are not, and never will be, unbiased. They exist to promote the views of their editors. 

[chris182 6,316]

3 minutes ago, theiconicman said:

The press are not, and never will be, unbiased. They exist to promote the views of their editors. 

Or their shareholders ?

[eejay the dj 31,964]

52 minutes ago, orangecountry said:

Sorry but this is all side show distraction bull shit. 

Try and get us all together to stand against the MSM in a bid to ignore the problems at ibrox  

we don't like nor trust them as it is. he's no different from anyone else and neither is his opinion. 

 

You could well be right 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

11 minutes ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Me personally could fill a fleet of buses of cunts I would like barred.

My list mate .Stick them all in one and set off the gas .Maybe a slower method if anyone has any ideas 

 

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Banning Jackson doesn't solve a thing. Why don't the wankers running our club actually make good decisions to make us stronger while at the same time making the papers look foolish??

i thought this board said the daily record was "courageous"?.

whats changed? Is Keith Jackson about to drop a bombshell?  It all seems to be so similar to how whyte banned reporters.  I hope Jackson writes articles everyday slamming king and questioning him and this circus act of a board

[onefootwillie 1,518]

31 minutes ago, chris182 said:

Or their shareholders ?

Or those they have a commercial agreement with 

[j1mgg 3,766]

Jackson doesn't need to get into Ibrox or the training ground, we have rats that go running to him for a few extra pounds in their pocket, staff and supporters.

[Coop 654]

Jackson is a waste of space.  Unreal he actually earns a living from the shite he writes.

[Young Bob 1,360]

Why has this been revealed today?

Anything to do with directors getting it tight on various forums?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

keech will be the same as the rest of them, gollum etc, back in a fortnight ! 

 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

19 minutes ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

keech will be the same as the rest of them, gollum etc, back in a fortnight ! 

 

 

That's been a helluva fortnight. McLaughlin has been banned since January 2016

[jimgers 565]

It's a start but who else?

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

This one is passing me by a bit.  I don't read the DR so have no idea what KJ has been saying about Pedro that has lit the blue touchpaper to result in KJ being banned.  I've no time for the DR or for KJ .....and I have a huge amount of distrust of what is reported in the media anyway, so the controversy is not really that clear to me.

Does banning him stop him writing about Rangers, King, the Board, the Manager, the players, the Club, the Support?    I don't think so.   The ban, reading it from a long distance of any sort of understanding of what's been written that caused it, seems to me on the face of it to be a largely symbolic action, a form of institutional sulk.   But others more informed on the details than me are better placed to judge if it is justified.   Even if it is I can't see it being a barrier to him or the DR in writing about the Club.

Wonder if King was in on the decision to ban KJ.   If he was then surely he must have guessed that he was presenting himself as a big target for KJ and the DR to have a go at on a 'gloves off' basis and be as provocative as they like within the bounds of libel etc laws.  Does setting himself (King that is) up as too good a target for KJ not to take on with some caustic journalism mean that he is wittingly placing himself and the Board in the firing line to create a sense of injury and thus promote a feeling in the Support of needing to back the Club by buying STs?  That, to me,  would be a strange strategy if that were the case. 

If King was not in on the decision to ban KJ, then things maybe become a bit more spicy.   What do I mean by that?   Well, if KJ turns his reporting guns more on King and the Board and produces a stream of caustic articles then it seems to me to be bound to have the effect of ratcheting up the pressure on King and the Board from an external source and not just from rumblings of grumbling displeasure from inside the Club via Supporter views.   Whoever decided to ban KJ may have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) opened the way for a hornets nest of additional pressure to be applied to King and the Board.   

[bombaybadboy08 15,660]

Dont even need to read the details, if he's been banned then I have no doubt that he's offended Scrooge and this is his wee punishment to teach him never to say bad stuff about our Devious Dave again. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, bombaybadboy08 said:

Dont even need to read the details, if he's been banned then I have no doubt that he's offended Scrooge and this is his wee punishment to teach him never to say bad stuff about our Devious Dave again. 

That's the first I've heard Caixinha referred to as Scrooge or Devious Dave.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

5 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

This one is passing me by a bit.  I don't read the DR so have no idea what KJ has been saying about Pedro that has lit the blue touchpaper to result in KJ being banned.  I've no time for the DR or for KJ .....and I have a huge amount of distrust of what is reported in the media anyway, so the controversy is not really that clear to me.

Does banning him stop him writing about Rangers, King, the Board, the Manager, the players, the Club, the Support?    I don't think so.   The ban, reading it from a long distance of any sort of understanding of what's been written that caused it, seems to me on the face of it to be a largely symbolic action, a form of institutional sulk.   But others more informed on the details than me are better placed to judge if it is justified.   Even if it is I can't see it being a barrier to him or the DR in writing about the Club.

Wonder if King was in on the decision to ban KJ.   If he was then surely he must have guessed that he was presenting himself as a big target for KJ and the DR to have a go at on a 'gloves off' basis and be as provocative as they like within the bounds of libel etc laws.  Does setting himself (King that is) up as too good a target for KJ not to take on with some caustic journalism mean that he is wittingly placing himself and the Board in the firing line to create a sense of injury and thus promote a feeling in the Support of needing to back the Club by buying STs?  That, to me,  would be a strange strategy if that were the case. 

If King was not in on the decision to ban KJ, then things maybe become a bit more spicy.   What do I mean by that?   Well, if KJ turns his reporting guns more on King and the Board and produces a stream of caustic articles then it seems to me to be bound to have the effect of ratcheting up the pressure on King and the Board from an external source and not just from rumblings of grumbling displeasure from inside the Club via Supporter views.   Whoever decided to ban KJ may have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) opened the way for a hornets nest of additional pressure to be applied to King and the Board.   

That is exactly why king is a moron. Too busy trying to deflect, in his short sighted pursuit of money from the gullible, not to realise that there will be consequences to his actions. As was stated by a few posters, a tactic to divert away from the result and try to boost ST sales in targetting KJ.

He is becoming evermore predictable in his desperation, which may not be good news for us, as he is capable of just about anything, but on the positive, the more his malfeasance is publicised the better, as it may accelerate the departure of this particular piece of toxic waste.

[Pearson83 1,059]

Funny how a guy who's never been to ibrox and did not know who davie Cooper was has this info. Jackson is least of our worries who cares what he writes his trying to save his job as his paper is going tits up! 

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

What happens now, Keith was the 'go to journalist' for Mini.

[K.A.I 36,183]

I'm glad Jackson is banned but his article today on King was still 100% bang on too 

[RFC55 109,177]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

I'm glad Jackson is banned but his article today on King was still 100% bang on too 

I might get slaughtered here but I don't even mind Jackson TBH.

there's a few more above him in the pecking order for me 

[K.A.I 36,183]

3 minutes ago, Rfc52 said:

I might get slaughtered here but I don't even mind Jackson TBH.

there's a few more above him in the pecking order for me 

Likewise 

[whitecity 3]

1 hour ago, Reformation Bear said:

This one is passing me by a bit.  I don't read the DR so have no idea what KJ has been saying about Pedro that has lit the blue touchpaper to result in KJ being banned.  I've no time for the DR or for KJ .....and I have a huge amount of distrust of what is reported in the media anyway, so the controversy is not really that clear to me.

Does banning him stop him writing about Rangers, King, the Board, the Manager, the players, the Club, the Support?    I don't think so.   The ban, reading it from a long distance of any sort of understanding of what's been written that caused it, seems to me on the face of it to be a largely symbolic action, a form of institutional sulk.   But others more informed on the details than me are better placed to judge if it is justified.   Even if it is I can't see it being a barrier to him or the DR in writing about the Club.

Wonder if King was in on the decision to ban KJ.   If he was then surely he must have guessed that he was presenting himself as a big target for KJ and the DR to have a go at on a 'gloves off' basis and be as provocative as they like within the bounds of libel etc laws.  Does setting himself (King that is) up as too good a target for KJ not to take on with some caustic journalism mean that he is wittingly placing himself and the Board in the firing line to create a sense of injury and thus promote a feeling in the Support of needing to back the Club by buying STs?  That, to me,  would be a strange strategy if that were the case. 

If King was not in on the decision to ban KJ, then things maybe become a bit more spicy.   What do I mean by that?   Well, if KJ turns his reporting guns more on King and the Board and produces a stream of caustic articles then it seems to me to be bound to have the effect of ratcheting up the pressure on King and the Board from an external source and not just from rumblings of grumbling displeasure from inside the Club via Supporter views.   Whoever decided to ban KJ may have unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) opened the way for a hornets nest of additional pressure to be applied to King and the Board.   

How could king be libeled by anyone.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

That's been a helluva fortnight. McLaughlin has been banned since January 2016

Does he no float in and oot wae bbc brigadoon !