BrahimHemdani

It's a fact that I don't like Mr Graham so I appreciate you taking time to restate your viewpoint. I understand why you say his re-tweet was "allowable offensiveness" but I disagree for one particular reason. I don't think that Mr Graham is a stupid person and therefore I'm going to credit him with the intelligence to know that even if the message was solely directed at Mr Choudray, it would be read, disseminated and understood for what it was by the wider community and not just Muslims I might add. I don't know whether the message was sent before or after he was co-opted on to the Board of the RST and became their spokesperson but I think I am right in saying that he has been writing (for) the Rangers Standard for some time and has been regarded in the written and broadcast media as some kind of fan's leader or spokesperson as part of the UoF or whatever. Whether he thrust himself into that role or it was thrust upon him, I don't know and care less, but there is no question that he was and until the last two days at least, high profile. Such a person, as I know well, has to be very careful what they say and do in public and these days that extends to so called social media. I stand by my view therefore that it was a silly, childish, ill-considered and deliberately offensive (we agree on that at least) thing to do. I am quite sure he could have made the point to Mr Choudray without using that particular cartoon. I see we also agree that it may not have been the wisest thing to do. I don't think that a fan's representative should be behaving in that way, because even if your view is correct, which I don't concede; it is clearly controversial and divisive at a time when that is the last thing we need. Yes it was made in the past but the not too distant past and quite why he didn't just apologise and be done with it is beyond me. No doubt we'll hear more in early course.

Why would it be contemptuous to point out the blatant contradiction in your posts? And it certainly isn't trolling as I understand it because I've only done it once.

Whilst no one would argue with your final sentence, I think the issue here is where you would draw the line between allowable and non-allowable offensiveness. As RB points out whilst the re-tweet was sent to Choudary it is there for all Muslims to read and clearly grossly offensive to some if not most. Would you say that it is OK to be offensive so long as it is not the kind of offensiveness that might lead to a riot and who is to make that judgement, a policeman and/or the procurator fiscal as with the oft derided Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act? Or just a Breach of the Peace type situation? It is easy to find ways to justify Mr Graham's actions but isn't it even easier just to admit that it was a silly, childish thing to do and whether he was a director of Rangers at the time or not, it shows he is not the type of person who should hold that office.

If you say so but I remain of the view that the RFB were right to maintain the vote of no confidence in the Board; but wrong to publish the Leach comment and most folk, the secretary included, agreed with me.

Shoredbear 03-11-2015, 01:05 AM http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?69239-John-Bennett-and-Chris-Graham-join-plc-board/page12

It is my view that that was most definitely a trap and unfortunately the RFB fell right into it.

Yes, it certainly was; but they did give him the perfect excuse.

Snap see #449 at exactly the same time 11:07!

You were 100% closer to it than me, so I am not going to argue with your opinion but if it was "payback" as you suggest then it was a silly thing to do for the reason I gave and also because it was fairly clear from his opening gambit that he was going to disband the RFB in any event, if the vote of no confidence was maintained, so he didn't need another excuse. As it happens, the RFB did give him another excuse by publishing Leach's comments about T3B.

I am not sure about the point of this question but since you ask and since one word answers are not allowed: YES, I would have no difficulty in passing a "fit and proper" test by the SFA or in terms of stock market rules. I have never been charged with any offence (other than speeding about 30 years ago) never mind convicted of any offences that carry a 2 year or more jail term and I have never been a director of a company that suffered an insolvency event. In fact I have only ever been a director of three companies: Financial Services, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association (FIMBRA) Supporters Direct (UK) FansFirst Scotland Ltd In financial services terms, the test of "fit and proper" is whether a person and indeed his business is considered to be honest, competent and solvent; which I was at all times. I am not certain exactly how the AIM test might differ from that but I was assured some time ago that I would have passed.

That's a ridiculous question and one I am not going to answer because I am not on trial here, or am I? Do you want me to quote the whole judgement again so that you can bar me for trolling?

I don't pretend to be an expert on this so I am not sure if the meetings "opened on the 4th" as you say (and closed on the 6th) or if the NOMAD just considered that he was obliged to hold or open meetings on the 4th in case anyone turned up claiming not to know about the change of date. I really don't understand what Llambias would have to gain by deliberately misleading the RFB and allowing them to publish a wrong date because if it was a lie then he must have known it would be exposed very quickly and he would be the one who would look bad, not the RFB. Perhaps he just made a mistake and instead of admitting that he made up a story about the date being changed to cover up, that seems silly to me, but it might have been what happened.

No, in the course of the case the judge stated that he was a liar etc; all part of the same thing.

It was held on the 6th.

I think that's a pretty damn good effort, and I think there's quite a striking resemblance to the Doge's Palace or closer to home (or someone else's home perhaps), Templeton's Carpet Factory, the design of which was directly inspired by the medieval Palazzo Ducale (Doge's Palace) in Venice.

It's not a double standard at all, both Mr King and Mr Sandy Easdale have been convicted of offences relating to non payment of tax; so far as I am aware Mr Llambias has not been convicted of anything; but I'll stand to be corrected.

I apply the same reasoning to Mr King as I do to Mr Sandy Easdale; I didn't and don't want either anywhere near Ibrox.

It seems to me that that is pretty clear evidence that the meetings were indeed set for the 4th.

Afternoon training, will that constitute overtime?

My reasons for objecting to Dave King's presence at Rangers are well known, so I will not repeat them here, lest I be accused of trolling, if that is the correct term.

I would contend that the result of the investigation should be made public for two reasons: 1) The comments complained off were made in public 2) The position of director of RFC is very public, so the directors actions including past actions if they might have a bearing on how that person is perceived or how the Club is perceived in public, should be open to public scrutiny.

1) No I am not. The reason I say that is that I still find it hard to believe that Llambias deliberately set a trap and the RFB fell into it. Furthermore was it not reported that the NOMAD arranged for some form of the EGM to take place in the London hotels on the 4th and took pictures to prove it? I put this as a question since I am on a yellow card at the moment and have no evidence for this. 2) As I read what Llambias said "There's no way the board is picking the team." that is not quite the same thing as what McDowall said but before you accuse me of semantics, I agree that McDowall's version is the more credible.

The Club have said they are investigating so they have to respond one way or the other. My guess is that Mr Graham will make an apology for any unintended offence caused.

Part of what I quoted was from an email I received referring to posts that were published on FB and elsewhere but I couldn't get the link; other than that I accept what you say.

I was never a player but did referee there a couple of times; a few dodgy decisions might help.