CLUB 1872 statement on the fanzone

[markem 7,251]

9 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

It’s paranoia to think there is some grand plan or conspiracy - makes me laugh. 

What went on here is seriously wrong but the concept of some ‘grand plan’ - laughable 

conspiracy

noun

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

—————-

Multiple persons done this with the intent to harm the club, they lied about it with the intent to cover it up. 

There are emails where 1 person is asking another what evidence there is against them.  

It’s the definition of conspiring. I realise you are never going to accept what is obvious to pretty much everyone else about that party but retain some credibility  ffs.

Laughable? - it couldn’t be more blatant. 

I think deep down you must know you are lying to yourself as it’s difficult for you to accept two things you care about are polar opposite and incompatible, enemies tbh. 

[plumbGER 24,518]

23 minutes ago, markem said:

Laughable?

That seems to be the go-to word for most SNPers I know when any accusations are made against their beloved party.

Bp9 seems to get all the stick here but I'm sure @KeyserSoze is every bit the nationalist he is.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

38 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Targetted and dealt with like no other by HMRC, OBFA legislation introduced with the aim of Catholic victims... knowing Rangers fans likeliest to be prosecuted, the Fans Zone debacle, Commonwealth games fund main beneficiaries being in the east end, cover ups a plenty if it involves Catholic faith/ Catholic club/ SNP.

It's there if you open your eyes. That you refuse to is typical of one who knows but doesn't want to believe.

It’s that type of drivel that shows your paranoia 

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,393]

30 minutes ago, markem said:

conspiracy

noun

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

—————-

Multiple persons done this with the intent to harm the club, they lied about it with the intent to cover it up. 

There are emails where 1 person is asking another what evidence there is against them.  

It’s the definition of conspiring. I realise you are never going to accept what is obvious to pretty much everyone else about that party but retain some credibility  ffs.

Laughable? - it couldn’t be more blatant. 

I think deep down you must know you are lying to yourself as it’s difficult for you to accept two things you care about are polar opposite and incompatible, enemies tbh. 

You are wasting your breath mate. He has a crush on wee Nicola. In his world the English invaded us and stole his country. We will soon live like Arabs off the oil revenue and we can open the doors to immigrants to fill our underpopulated country. 

He only comes on here to annoy cunts. A sad, lonely little man who craves attention.

[Bobby Hume 12,993]

12 hours ago, Boybluesy said:

I'll notify your next of kin...

?

? This wheel shall explode ?

..... along with GCC .... 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

32 minutes ago, markem said:

conspiracy

noun

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

—————-

Multiple persons done this with the intent to harm the club, they lied about it with the intent to cover it up. 

There are emails where 1 person is asking another what evidence there is against them.  

It’s the definition of conspiring. I realise you are never going to accept what is obvious to pretty much everyone else about that party but retain some credibility  ffs.

Laughable? - it couldn’t be more blatant. 

I think deep down you must know you are lying to yourself as it’s difficult for you to accept two things you care about are polar opposite and incompatible, enemies tbh. 

... and you know quite well that it was not this singular event I was referring to but the concept that all these real, and imagined, slights are some sort of cordinated strategy. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

2 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

It’s that type of drivel that shows your paranoia 

It's that deflection and refusal to debate the salient points that shows you can't or won't be objective, just blinded / stubborn.

[Iggy666 2,880]

53 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Not as nieve as the thought proces that says there is a conspiracy against our club that is orchestrated - that somehow alienating a huge swathe of people makes any kind of political sense. Yes there are idiots who hate our club, then again We are not the only club that are hated by others - what happened here is wrong, heads should roll, but to use that as evidence of some sort of orchestrated conspiracy is laughable! Paranoid! Yep some of us sure are.

And yet this is what the snp and it's followers all accuse the Tories, Labour, lib dems and any other political party that doesn't toe the nationalist line of doing.

You may not be a celtic fan but you are a taig In every other sense of the word. You provide nothing to this forum. You believe you give a different view but you don't. You argue against everything and anything. Derail threads with polar opposite views, not because you believe what you say, but simply to get a reaction. 

[KeyserSoze 14,521]

26 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

That seems to be the go-to word for most SNPers I know when any accusations are made against their beloved party.

Bp9 seems to get all the stick here but I'm sure @KeyserSoze is every bit the nationalist he is.

Thanks for the shout Plumb ?

But my family betterment, economical and political views have zero connections to my 50 years of following this great club of ours. 

Just the way I like it. 

We are a broad family at Rangers - exactly as it should be. ?

Equally I have no problem with others who consider the political side of our club 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,478]

BP9 is far worse than the most rabid tarrier out there.

[markem 7,251]

19 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

... and you know quite well that it was not this singular event I was referring to but the concept that all these real, and imagined, slights are some sort of cordinated strategy. 

Why is it so difficult for you to believe the SNP (that’s a broad brush, I know) hate Rangers? The club is symbolic of everything they are trying to remove.  Allowing for their beliefs its natural and expected they hate Rangers and quite frankly would rather we didn’t exist. It’s only guys like you that are conflicted that want to disbelieve it.  You are in absolute denial BP.   

I am not trying to condescend you here, you are clearly not a stupid guy but your unwillingness to see what is blatantly obvious is an insult to your intelligence. 

This is one instance I accept that but it is hard evidence and validation for what the vast majority of people have always thought to be the case. How many instances like this would it take for you to accept the obvious - or would that be too difficult to ever do? 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

27 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

It's that deflection and refusal to debate the salient points that shows you can't or won't be objective, just blinded / stubborn.

 Being lectured on being objective by the person running the referees are all against us thread - fuck that’s a good one! 

[markem 7,251]

1 minute ago, Bluepeter9 said:

 Being lectured on being objective by the person running the referees are all against us thread - fuck that’s a good one! 

He’s as paranoid as Steven ‘it’s been happening for years’ Gerrard about refs. 

 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Just now, markem said:

Why is it so difficult for you to believe the SNP (that’s a broad brush, I know) hate Rangers? The club is symbolic of everything they are trying to remove.  Allowing for their beliefs its natural and expected they hate Rangers and quite frankly would rather we didn’t exist. It’s only guys like you that are conflicted that want to disbelieve it.  You are in absolute denial BP.   

I am not trying to condescend you here, you are clearly not a stupid guy but your unwillingness to see what is blatantly obvious is an insult to your intelligence. 

This is one instance I accept that but it is hard evidence and validation for what the vast majority of people have always thought to be the case. How many instances like this would it take for you to accept the obvious - or would that be too difficult to ever do? 

Just answer me why would the SNP actually target Rangers to further their agenda? You really think they are that inhibited by the whole unionist / Protestant thing - surely it’s much more likely that in a Protestant ( sic) country that would be daft ? Surely they would be better served courting that majority! 

I fully understand confirmation bias - we all suffer from it but we have a section of our support that use and twist every example to feed their paranoia - and it’s simply my opinion that conspiracy does not exist. 

[markem 7,251]

34 minutes ago, Drunk and disorderly. said:

You are wasting your breath mate. He has a crush on wee Nicola. In his world the English invaded us and stole his country. We will soon live like Arabs off the oil revenue and we can open the doors to immigrants to fill our underpopulated country. 

He only comes on here to annoy cunts. A sad, lonely little man who craves attention.

Timely intervention, I agree I am wasting my time and could end up wasting my day. 

What frustrates me is I don’t expect to come on here today and BP (and others like him) to have  changed their views over night however it should be a definite moment of reflection and consideration - instead it’s the usual pish..’laughable’. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,478]

3 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Just answer me why would the SNP actually target Rangers to further their agenda? You really think they are that inhibited by the whole unionist / Protestant thing - surely it’s much more likely that in a Protestant ( sic) country that would be daft ? Surely they would be better served courting that majority! 

I fully understand confirmation bias - we all suffer from it but we have a section of our support that use and twist every example to feed their paranoia - and it’s simply my opinion that conspiracy does not exist. 

First bit in bold- To play up to their audience who absolutely loathe us and everything we stand for?

Second bit in bold- The majority are the 55% who voted no, the one's they chose not to represent. Ya spastic 

[markem 7,251]

42 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

 Surely they would be better served courting that majority! 

You know something I don’t disagree with that however there for me is a major problem throughout that entire party. Their approach is combatative, not to influence  and gain support.  

If you don’t agree with the ‘foot soilders’ (think about that - sound like courting?) you’re a coward, if they see a flag they don’t like, they rip it down - again I am broad brushing but in my experience the vast majority of yes voters want to tell me I’m wrong, and are aggressive in their approach  

Theirs is a militant approach and I honeslty believe it’s a big mistake on their part - long may it continue. 

[thebluedoo 2,652]

Had this been Tory councillors doing this to them, this would be condemned as proof of sectarianism and establishment bias, that reality should prove that there is no equal treatment involved in this at all. The fact that Stephen Dornan is involved is clear evidence of bias against a predominantly British institution, if you can't see that then you are imo putting political opinion before  the facts. 

[thebooler 4,509]

On 15/10/2018 at 17:31, eskbankloyal said:

A further point, the initial FOI request from Club 1872 was met with a response that the council had no correspondence on the matter. Once challenged they have now released over 100 pages of information. 

Funny that. 

..............which is illegal mate.

[markem 7,251]

5 minutes ago, thebluedoo said:

Had this been Tory councillors doing this to them, this would be condemned as proof of sectarianism and establishment bias, that reality should prove that there is no equal treatment involved in this at all. The fact that Stephen Dornan is involved is clear evidence of bias against a predominantly British institution, if you can't see that then you are imo putting political opinion before  the facts. 

They don’t get to play a game where they want in a 50/50 decision and they are wheeling out the ‘discrimination’ yarn. 

Spot on btw

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

22 minutes ago, markem said:

You know something I don’t disagree with that however there for me is a major problem throughout that entire party. Their approach is combatative, not to influence  and gain support.  

If you don’t agree with the ‘foot soilders’ (think about that - sound like courting?) you’re a coward, if they see a flag they don’t like, they rip it down - again I am broad brushing but in my experience the vast majority of yes voters want to tell me I’m wrong, and are aggressive in their approach - rarely is a courting approach taken  

Theirs is a militant approach and I honeslty believe it’s a big mistake on their part - long may it continue. 

Ripping down flags ? That’s a new one. 

Millitant approach? And yet all they have done is use the ballot box. 

Really poor points you’ve made. 

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,123]

28 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Just answer me why would the SNP actually target Rangers to further their agenda? You really think they are that inhibited by the whole unionist / Protestant thing - surely it’s much more likely that in a Protestant ( sic) country that would be daft ? Surely they would be better served courting that majority! 

I fully understand confirmation bias - we all suffer from it but we have a section of our support that use and twist every example to feed their paranoia - and it’s simply my opinion that conspiracy does not exist. 

Not all Protestants (sic) are Rangers supporters, there is a large majority in the SNP ranks who want rid of our club and what it stands for.

Do you think they enjoy seeing the Union flag being waved around at our games. ?

 

 

[OhW 4,669]

What a lonely man.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,626]

45 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

 Being lectured on being objective by the person running the referees are all against us thread - fuck that’s a good one! 

? the thread where I'm entering significant decisions FOR and against? The one which by default is about being objective so that there's substance to what most believe? The thread youre likely avoiding as it doesnt fit your narrative? That thread? ?

Priceless ???

[OhW 4,669]

17 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

Not all Protestants (sic)

Why?