D'Artagnan

Can I just confirm, unequivocally, in response to some rumours which have surfaced - none of the directors who resigned have applied for the SLO post, or any other post for that matter currently advertised by Rangers.

Rangers First always had a Community Interest Company and part of its remit was to safeguard some of the clubs' assets through CIC ownership. This obviously carries into C1872 which has ownership of RF's CIC plus RST's.

 

I presume that any infrastructure investment would be through the CIC, although I'm not sure how the protection would work in practice.

 

I understand that members of C1872 have the choice of how their cash is invested. I think the default may be 50:50 between shares and capital projects but members can opt for just one if they wish.

 

Seems like a fair enough way to go about it.

Thats about right BD - unlike RF which was shares acquision only - the CIC is in different parts now to accommodate the wishes of members.

The shares CIC will solely be for the acquisition of shares and the projects CIC for projects.

But both are still goverened by CIC rules.

In the case of the Projects CIC any projects undertaken would still have to satisfy the conditions laid out for a Community Interest Company.

If club 1872 were allowed to invest in training infrastructure it would be a great use of cash. Perhaps it was part of a private conversation but not sure why the MD and 1872 aren't making an immediate statement to say they are following up on how to use 1872 money. Saying 'we await a proposal' when 1872 are sitting opposite doesn't transmit a level of urgency to me. I am sure the MD is working hard but I would expect a more energetic response.

Perhaps I can answer that for you Walterbear.

Club 1872 is formed as a Community Interest Company and there are strict guidelines on the use of member's money - which is where terms such as "asset lock" and "community test" come into play.

Use of money for projects by those who have opted for it, is permitted but even then must satisfy stringent tests.

It may only be a short paragraph, but nonetheless it speaks volumes..

But trust has to be earned and maintained. No board at Rangers Football Club should ever again be afforded the luxury of blind faith regardless of who they are or what they have achieved.

I think you miss the point GS.

 

The point was they seemed supportive of the OB Act initially..... until they realized it wasn't aimed solely at rangers fans.

 

Yes... it isn't just about us. As it should be. But I think you were wrong when saying "the green brigade say it was only invented to persecute them". That attitude only started after they realized that not only rangers fans would be charged. They supported it initially.

What concerns me most Craig, is having come to such a realisation, the considrable momentum which picked up for its repeal.

It would appear Santa was kind to big Robert Marshall of Louden Tavern fame, judging by events on Saturday. His new shiny Pyle Pro Bullhorn electronic megaphone has replaced the old and trusted microphone, alas as a consequence of Santa’s benevolence there is just “No place to hide” in terms of escaping Robert’s infamous one liners. There is an upside however – one can reasonably enquire of this landlord “How are your pyles this evening squire”? And I would encourage you all to do so.

After Saturday’s match against Celtic there will be a lot of bears wishing Santa, albeit belatedly, could be so kind to our manager in the January transfer window. At times, it was akin to a Night at the Movies with Tav determined to land a role in Jenny Agutter’s “Walkabout” and Waghorn apparently, a stick on should they decide to do a re-make of “White Men Can’t Jump”. I doubt I’m the only bear in the room who would wish these two exposed to a Jock Wallace type de-brief on their respective performances rather than some modern-day education about how to improve their “pitch geography”.

It was painful to watch at times with the term “hot knife and butter” perhaps summing up our catastrophic defending, not so much a nightmare on Elm Street but Edmiston Drive. The fact we could have somehow squeezed out a point at the end of the day says more about Wes’ continued improvement as a keeper and their inability to finish than anything else. Perhaps however Saturday did end the mystery of Harry Forrester’s irregular appearances this season, whether it be down to selfishness or poor judgement of the final ball, but Oh Lord, how many of us will re-live that simple square pass for the rest of our days? While “Harry Met Sally” or “Deconstructing Harry” might seem like suitable contenders for this moment, personally I’d opt for Hitchcock’s 1955 classic “The Trouble with Harry”.

While our midfield may be competing for the leading role in “The Invisible Man” at least young Barrie had the swagger and look about him as one who may be a contender for “The man who would be king”. Its just a pity that so many others could not even provide a “best supporting role” let alone an accurate pass. When Souness was at the helm at Ibrox it was considered a crime to give the ball away unnecessarily, Saturday unfortunately provided us with a long list of potential movie villains in this regard.

Coming home on the bus on Saturday provided the setting for “12 Angry Men” (so long as you are generous with numbers and gender) with everyone from the board, to the manager to the players, none failed to escape the “The Wrath of Khan”. The eventual consensus was not particularly encouraging, nor were the solutions either quick or easy. Unless of course a benevolent, belated Santa were to come along with a Slumdog Millionaire.

I rarely end a sentence with a preposition either and never would with "thereto". The register (tone) is out of plae in any case, as you note. I was just pointing out that it is a matter of style and not grammar despite what generations of teachers taught us in schools. I do not think style is unimportant.

 

I admire you whatever connections with Greek that you had. It was not present at our school at all. Not that it would have done me any good as I was not a good scholar. I only attended school after 14/15 because the polis caught me playing hookey at a magic shop in Glasgow. Some 7 months of freedom blown in one silly error on my part. Well two errors, as I also infuriated Frank Coulston (ex Thistle - PE teacher) by not turning up for a County marathon run and he was on my trail that very week. Anyway, I ended up having to go to school until I was 16 by which time, by a quirk of catchment areas, I'd already sat my 'highers'. If I hadn't been caught, I'd still have been avoiding the damn place. So, the moral of this story is - play truant for as long as you can if you want to get good exam results

 

PS Sorry to stray so wildly off topic. The end of the year always make me reflect on the past. I'll stop now.

BH/Steve

Dont mean to put a spanner in the works to this delightful linguistic discussion - but its actually a comma after "thereto" not a full stop.

They are trying to build bridges!, bridges that crumbled when we were kicked out of the SPL!, bridges that can't be rebuilt IMO!.

Do you know Ian - I think that may well be our realistic starting point - & once that realisation sinks in we will be all the better for it.

After the game at Parkhead were the club not approached by Club1872 or RST about banning them from Ibrox? Anyaway after their antics it gave the board the perfect chance to do something this time. They could have reduced their ticket allocation to the bare minimum even if it meant leaving the majority of the Broomie empty. But no, they don't want to fall out with SPFL.

I think you are correct BG - was it not a statement which was issued by the then working group ?

Or "cumulative" perhaps?

Yep thats the one. Though you can file that error under rushed typo rather than grammatical.

PS Prof Brooks Landon is the inspiration

In that case then, who do i contact in club1872, to ask for a membership ballot for a vast reduction of the Celtic supporters ticket allocation for Ibrox?

Id fire it into the official email account

Dar't can I ask is there any enthusiasm within the board of Club1872 in regards to, balloting their membership for a vote on Celtic ticket allocation at Ibrox for future games? A clear mandate for a ticket reduction from the membership, would carry some weight should Club1872 take this further with the Rangers board.

 

I think there would be a successful vote for a vast reduction, as feelings have hardened in the Rangers supporting ranks, towards them in view of their increasing violence not forgetting a plethora of bigoted, sectarian and terrorist glorification paraphernalia, on show when we play them.

To be honest bud I dont think it matters whether there is enthusiasm within the Club 1872 board or not. And what I mean by that is that this is a member driven organisation and if that was the feeling of our members then it would be a function and duty of the Club 1872 board to communicate that to the Rangers board.

Admirable sentiments and it's good that someone is making these points to Police Scotland on behalf of the fans, although one assumes that much the same would be addressed in the pre match briefing between the Match Commander and Robin Howe (who previously held that position) and David Martin for Rangers.

 

I do feel however, that great care should be taken with such public statements. The second sentence is a bit of a monster and when I was at school long ago, I was taught never to end a sentence with a preposition; although I know that "rule" has been somewhat relaxed these days. And (yes I know don't begin a sentence with a conjunction!) surely it should be "the minute's silence" not "the minute silence", which is capable of two meanings and might be deliberately misinterpreted by some mischief makers.

 

Let's all hope that the match passes off without incident, at least off the pitch.

One man's monster is another man's culmative sentence. :-))

This worries me. I wouldn't be surprised if Norwich were interested in MW. He's more than proved himself in the Championship at an unfashionable club with few resources.

 

What's always baffled me is why Norwich City, who were an EPL club at the time, chose a Hamilton Accies manager to be their first team manager. Obviously nothing to do with the fact their yahoo CEO at the time chose a yahoo to be their manger maybe ?

Doesnt surprise me either Rab - he has rebuilt a squad on a shoestring, gained promotion & now sits second top in Scotland.

Perhaps food for thought for some of the "Warburton must go" proponents.

Publishing

Publishing is the dissemination of literature, music, or information—the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same. Also, the word publisher can refer to the individual who leads a publishing company or an imprint or to a person who owns/heads a magazine.

 

D'Art, going by that definition of publishing I would think that the Lord Advocate could severely punish anyone singing the praises of a proscribed organization.

n.b.

Her Majesty's Advocate, known as the Lord Advocate (Scottish Gaelic: Morair Tagraidh, Scots: Laird Advocat), is the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland for both civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. He or she is the chief public prosecutor for Scotland and all prosecutions on indictment are conducted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, nominally in the Lord Advocate's name.The officeholder is one of the Great Officers of State of Scotland. The current Lord Advocate is The Rt Hon. James Wolffe, QC.

Hmmm Im not convinced on that bud = the wording suggests , in my opinion, prepared material rather than singing - but I could be wrong.

I remember getting a lecture from a leading advocate which always stuck with me throughout my career - always go for the simplest constructed charge as its the most difficult for the defence to break down

Thanks for that, reminds me a little of Blackadder...

 

 

 

"Baldrick, believe me, eternity in the company of Beelzebub and all his hellish instruments of death will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me and this pencil if we can't replace this dictionary."

Not at all. I just wanted your statement to be available to the folks on this forum.

I think its important that we all know how our board feels.

Yes I should have posted it in here as well - my apologies - the threads were more active on the other two forums

I'll leave it to Gernsnetters rather than google it...what does promulgated and surreptiously mean?

Promulgated - display, publish, put into operation

Surreptiously - done by stealth or in secret without authorisation

For those who believe D'Art, he posted this a few hours ago on another forum ...

 

D'Artagnan said:

I can confirm that the information contained on FF is consistent with that which we have received at Club 1872 - that there will be no early entry afforded to Celtic supporters for the purpose of erecting displays. And any banners or displays which are promulgated will have been surreptiously brought in between turnstile opening and kick off.

Do you think Im making it up barca ?

Craig, I value your opinion and am not out to change it.

 

As for the Terrorist Act 2000 and 2006, as well as proscribed organisations, I cite myself (in full) from another thread. This is for reference and I have, right now, not that much time debating it.

 

+ + +

 

 

 

Let me quote the Terrorism Act 2006:

 

1 Encouragement of terrorism

 

(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

 

(2) A person commits an offence if—

 

(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and

 

(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—

 

(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or

 

(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—

 

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and

 

(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1

 

And let me add ... Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

 

What is a proscribed organisation?

 

A. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:

• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;

• prepares for terrorism;

• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or

• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

 

What is meant by ‘terrorism’ in the proscription context?

 

A. “Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

What determines whether proscription is proportionate?

 

A. If the statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will consider whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors, including:

 

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;

• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;

• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;

• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and

• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

 

Irish Republican Army

Continuity Army Council

Cumann na mBan

Fianna na hEireann

Irish National Liberation Army

Irish People's Liberation Organisation

(page 17 & 18)

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2

 

The only question is ...

WHEN DID SCOTLAND LEAVE THE UK AND IS BEYOND THAT JURISDICTION?

I looked at this legislation as well DB but I think the word "publishes"" is key here - ie it is designed to apply to written material

Can you point me to the section of the Terrorism Act which would deal with their supposed illegal singing ? I just took a look at it and couldn't find anything. Be specific please because whilst we know that Celtic get away with a lot it would surprise that they actually get away with illegal acts of promoting Terrorism, particularly when it is encapsulated within legislation to prevent it.

Id suggest the section below from the 2000 Act would be a competent charge - though only the courts themseves could decide whether such singing qualified as "support" in the broadest terms of the Act. The requirement for it to be a proscribed organisation is of course met.

Can you point me to the section of the Terrorism Act which would deal with their supposed illegal singing ? I just took a look at it and couldn't find anything. Be specific please because whilst we know that Celtic get away with a lot it would surprise that they actually get away with illegal acts of promoting Terrorism, particularly when it is encapsulated within legislation to prevent it.

I think this from the 2006 Act would cover it.

There are intelligent men here defending BJK. That surprises me. The chant itself is infantile self-hypnosis delivered not as a complaint but as a partisan jibe either triumphant in victory or defiant in defeat. It will not instruct cfc in the error of their ways. It will not compel remorse in their odious following. It will not prompt Authority to investigate. Don't do it at the match. Don't defend it.

 

Get some articulate folk who know the full story to write to every Scottish MP, every MSP, every newspaper and every other news medium. The stoniest of stony ground, I know, but perhaps some of the MPs with children might take heed. Keep football and Rangers out of it because it's not about football and it's not about Rangers. It's much more important than that. It's about conniving to obscure one of the worst of crimes.

 

You're the parent or an aunt or an uncle of a victim. How would you feel about thousands of blokes jumping up and down roaring BJK and gesticulating at thousands of others screaming republican tripe in return? Heartened by the zeal for justice? Comforted by the empathy? Or disgusted that, by association, the victim's torment is used in the exchange of tribal abuse?

 

Think about it.

While I dont disagree with the content of your post Scott - the suggestion we write to MP's is a fruitless one.

What transpired at Parkhead & Celtic Boys Club is no secret only known to a select few.

The recent unwillingness to even make mention of it in recent press reports into child abuse underlines this.