Jump to content

 

 

barca72

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,356

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by barca72

  1. barca72
    I'm getting kind of fed up with this, because I don't think you have any intention of discussing the subject seriously. You have shown that you have an annoying trait of dropping a statement designed to illicit a reaction from someone and when they raise a point you deflect from having to answer your original statement. I want to bring you back to your original contribution, post #23. "alternatively, we could drop this display of militaristic jingoism entirely and replace it with something worthwhile. Why not have a particular day set aside ever season where we celebrate one particular branch of public sector workers - not just soldiers. We could have nurses one year, carers who work in old people's homes the next year, firemen the year after that. All of these jobs are far more valuable to society than that of a soldier and far more deserving of recognition." I wrote back on post #25 that I would be happy to see these other professions lauded on their own day if necessary, but not at the expense of AFD. "If you must laud their efforts then have a separate day for these other professions on a rolling basis, but do not detract from the fine work our forces do by appeasing the bheast." Now I was thinking along the lines of what we have in society at the moment whereby we pick a day, and for instance, call it "secretaries day" and we recognize their contributions. I would have thought that the point was pretty obvious and that the point you had to answer to was why you denigrated the status of the contributions given by the armed forces by writing this sentence : "All of these jobs are far more valuable to society than that of a soldier and far more deserving of recognition." Can you not see how disturbing such a statement is to many people? However, if that is your opinion you are certainly entitled to it. I should tell you that I have had a lot of experience with cancer nurses and hospice workers, my father and both of my elder brothers died of various forms of cancer, so I am very aware of their dedication and selfless work. I should also tell you that I am personally aware of the work performed by carer nurses. I have had nurses come to my home two/three times per week for many months now - I had a communication with Super-Ally in his health and fitness thread back in January. I asked the nurse this morning if she would like to have her work recognized by appearing on the pitch of a sports stadium and have the fans laud her and her colleagues. She was most definitely against such a demonstration as she would find it embarrassing. She would much rather be thanked by the family and/or her peers. She did add, and this was very revealing as I had not mentioned anything about the Armed Forces, that she had both of her children on active duty in the Armed Forces and would much prefer that if any section of the work force should be publicly acclaimed then it should be the Armed Forces. This happens regularly at football, baseball, hockey games etc. Maybe it might just be policy if you checked with the professions you purport to support to see if they would want such a celebration as you propose. We know that these shows of support given to the troops are greatly appreciated by the troops and are indeed a comfort to them when they are at times under extreme pressure on the front lines. This thread was started to address the actions directly concerned with AFD, not about how we are involved in foreign wars. If you are prepared to answer directly why you feel the troops, in your opinion, are not worthy of such acclimation then please lay it out. If you are not, don't bother answering. Thank you.
  2. barca72
    Patronizing, but I'll have a go. I can't tell you how many military actions that have resulted in giving Britons greater freedom since 1945, and you can't either. The Armed Forces are involved in many operations that go unreported. However, the first ones that come to mind are Ulster, The Falklands, many in Africa and the Middle East. I will not be drawn into an unnecessary argument of why the troops were there, nor why Britain has Armed Forces. I have seen other posts you have made on many other threads and I suspect you are an intelligent person so please don't insult my intelligence either by trying to give point-scoring answers. I have no doubt that you enjoy the freedom of a society that allows you to voice an opinion on any subject you wish, indeed even to criticise the government, the police, the armed forces or any other institution that you may have a grievance with. No doubt you will concede that Britain can afford you these freedoms only because of these institutions being strong and efficient. I worked several times in both the north and south towers of the World Trade Centre, the last job was in July 2001. I was back in Canada when the 9/11 bombings took place. I have thought often about how lucky I was that I had finished my contract when I did. I was, like many Canadian and American citizens, hugely stunned and emotionally affected by the horror of those events. In fact I was scared. It took some time to create and bring up to speed the Homeland Security organization. In the interim period I was grateful to see the armed forces at airports and railway stations. It gave myself and many millions of people, among these no doubt there were many cancer nurses and geriatric carers, great comfort and a reduced stress level. At least it was an effort to combat the terrorists. I never did believe the "smoking gun" theories, but we are where we are. I take great umbrage at your sneering and disrespectful remark "these fine soldiers running off to invade ...". Of course any member of the Armed Forces can refuse to carry out an order if they so choose, but again this may be because they live in a free society which their forefathers have earned for them. These troops are stationed where they are because their government chooses to put them there. There is no argument that you can give that changes that fact. I would suggest that this is because of a pro-active policy on the part of the Western governments. Deal with the terrorist threat locally before it can be exported to our shores. According to the greatly reduced acts of terror being perpetrated on Western countries, I for one am grateful for that policy. These young people on the front lines abroad face real bullets, real IED's, real mortars etc. I don't think I could do that on a daily basis so I am real glad that they can do it for me. Maybe when some of them are injured and are taken to a field hospital, they are treated by a nurse who has had previous experience as a cancer nurse. I wonder if you have ever had the urge when you see a member of the armed forces in the street to walk over and shake their hand and thank them for their service? You could of course do the same to a cancer nurse or a geriatric carer. B.H. in post #42 you stated, " I'm not sure that politics and football mix all that well. ". I don't know why you think that Rangers hosting an Armed Forces Day is a purely political act. Rangers extend an invitation to the Armed Forces Command who in turn request personnel to put their name forward for possible selection. The troops are there because they want to be there and the fans are obviously happy to laud these personnel for their contributions to the services. Many football clubs in Britain do the exact same. This is not a formal occasion where the troops are marching on the street but rather an informal gathering where a great many fans are gathered and can show their appreciation to the troops. I think Rangers are providing a welcome opportunity for the fans and the troops. In post #51 you state, " As I suggested earlier, if we do continue with the Day, then I feel it should be a much more formal affair and I do not think that the soldiers should be allowed to break ranks and run about the pitch waving scarves and banners of any description." On this one I am conflicted between the off-duty troops being allowed to enjoy an informal moment with the fans and the fact that the uniform still has to be respected. A compromise might be that they march onto the pitch, then form a circle(s) around the edge of the pitch, and in the stand easy position enjoy the fans accolades.
  3. barca72
    I happened upon this article on another site this morning and I thought I would post it for the edification of yourself and the rest of the hoi polloi. It would appear that the young troops feel that their "jobs are valuable to society" and that they enjoy such "recognition". Maybe it could be said that because of the young service people of today - and their counterparts in the past - performing such a valuable service to society that we are afforded the freedom to express differing opinions. Some things in life are, unfortunately, taken for granted. http://vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=121&a=armed-forces-day:-a-thank-you Armed Forces Day: A Thank You Written by: The Ref Thursday, 17th October 2013 A serving member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, has asked if I could put into words his appreciation and thanks to our club, Rangers Football Club and all associated with it including our supporters, for inviting him, and members of his regiment to Ibrox on the 28th September. He explained that when they were first told of this, it was a source of much ribbing between him and his brother; also a serviceman currently serving in the British Army. His brother is a Rangers supporter, he is a Celtic supporter, and much was made of the irony that although he is a Celtic supporter, there is no way his club would ever celebrate our armed forces in this way due to a large element in their support who despise our armed forces and vilify them at every opportunity, and as was pointed out, there are very few clubs as multi-denominational as Rangers at present. I have many friends who have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces and many who still do, and I know that it is hard for people to fully understand the difficulties our forces face on a daily basis while defending our country, democracy, and world peace. We live in an ever-changing world where war has changed. There are no longer battles such as those seen in the World Wars; we now live in a world of fire-fights, IED's and terrorist attacks, usually involving individuals or small groups of very organised people intent on causing as much damage as possible with as few casualties as possible on their part. In a way it has made things more intense, simply because they no longer wear uniforms, so you cannot easily identify them, nor can you predict when and where the enemy will strike. I also know that while serving on the front line, our armed forces truly appreciate the support they get from back home. War zones can be a lonely place, and it easy to feel detached and unappreciated while serving so far from home, but our club offered our support an opportunity to say thank you, and celebrate our brave servicemen and women. Our armed forces are multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-denominational and as such we support them all. After all, it is important to remember that bullets and bombs do not discriminate. What was seen at Ibrox on the 28th of September was a show of appreciation for our armed forces regardless of race, creed, colour or religion and a way of saying thank you to every one of those brave people; some who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The soldier who contacted me said that both himself and his comrades, many of them also Celtic supporters, truly appreciated this show of thanks and support, and in his words he, 'loved every minute of it, and would do it again in a heartbeat'. We should be proud, every one of us. Thank you.
  4. barca72
    Are you for real? Can you tell me which of these fine professions allows the freedom to the rest of these listed professions to carry out their quality work. If you must laud their efforts then have a separate day for these other professions on a rolling basis, but do not detract from the fine work our forces do by appeasing the bheast. Some things remain sacrosanct and apart from the ordinary. I'll guarantee you that not one service person who was on the Ibrox pitch would have considered themself as part of some "display of militaristic jingoism". I'll guarantee you also, that the 50,000 supporters in the stands who roared their appreciation of the troops efforts felt that such a display was "worthwhile".
  5. barca72
    Here's some input from a blogger called Ibrox Noise. How true it is I don't know. Ibrox Noise General rants about all things Rangers. Wednesday, 16 October 2013 Boardroom Chaos at Ibrox, What's Really Going On? With the ongoing chaos which permeates the Ibrox boardroom, it is almost impossible to know where to start. But I'll give it a go. Today saw the resignation of Chief Executive Officer Craig Mather and non-executive director Bryan Smart. Added to the resignation 2 months ago of Walter Smith as chairman, and the departure of non-executive director Ian Hart last week it is safe to conclude Rangers are not only deeper in the mire that acts like quicksand, but fundamentally rudderless: Rangers now have no board. The only ones left are Finance Director Brian Stockbridge and the Easdale Brothers, only one of whom is actually on the board. The other is on the sporting side, otherwise known as the Limited company. So Rangers' PLC board is effectively two men now. That is a summary of how it looks on the surface. 'Behind the scenes', however, the pitiful mess that is Rangers FC makes for even more damning viewing. The number of soap operas, backstabbings, lies, deceit and betrayal would have Mr Struth turning in his grave. There is no honour any more. What follows is a bit of an exposé of some of the truly ridiculous nonsense most Rangers fans know nothing about. I will not go into sources or indeed too much detail, but I will sum up the events I have been informed of. For a start, Rangers fans, myself included, applauded manager Ally McCoist for taking a 50% wage cut recently. Unfortunately the problem is this is, thus far, a complete fabrication. Ally McCoist's wage remains at £875,000 plus bonuses. No wage cut has yet been taken by the boss. McCoist also recently outed former director Ian Hart as a director who wanted him fired after the defeat to Forfar. Not actually the case at all. My understanding is Hart was only critical of McCoist's public verbal tirade against Charles Green (the whole 'we need a cup' comment), who was once McCoist's boss. And suggested to McCoist, had he been his own employee, such a tirade from employee against himself (Ian Hart) would have seen Ally fired. Hart did not want McCoist fired, he was only being rightly critical (as I was at the time as well) of McCoist's frankly ludicrous outburst at former CEO now consultant Green. There was also Craig Mather making underhand dealings 6 weeks ago to 'get rid' of Hart and Smart as a deal to appease Paul Murray and his 'consortium'. In other words, Mather was trying to make space on the board. That would have been acceptable had Hart or Smart been consulted and given their blessing but this was behind their backs. Hart also saved Rangers a lot of cash by persuading Charles Green to quit with severance pay. Green could easily have sued Rangers in court for a lot more. Just like Sandaza nearly did, and would have won but for Rangers cottoning on to his case being so strong and settled out of court. Then there is Brian Stockbridge; he did not take the bonus. He and Mather have both publicly confirmed it and my understanding is that at least is 100% true. It remains in the accounts contractually and nothing more. That one at least is honourable news but most fans refuse to accept it as the case. Another piece of honourable news is that Ian Hart was not paid £28,228 expenses. Instead he was just given that in shares in the club. The last thing I will touch on is the slightly embarrassing plans for the AGM. Mather and Stockbridge are/were so anxious about fan reaction they planned a 10ft stage with back exits and a tonne of police (no joke) so that they could be protected and escape if things got 'heated'. For the executives to require body guards and a plan B is truly the most absurd thing. What did they expect? A swarm of 50 angry bears charging the stage wanting blood? It is not a surprise Smart, Hart and Walter Smith quit. Albeit it probably is a surprise to many that while Malcolm Murray was the original 'mole', Mather and Walter were not averse to the occasional leak themselves. Rangers could not be in more of a mess right now, with no board, no leader, no direction, and a now-postponed AGM meaning new appointments cannot be made until just before Christmas. Still, at least the stuff on the pitch is worth cheering.
  6. barca72
    What does that leave, Stockbridge and the Easedales? How many do we need to have an effective board?
  7. barca72
    I understood ours to be No Surrender !!
  8. barca72
    So what you are saying is that once they have complete domination, they'll be satisfied? Aye right.
  9. barca72
    Hatred and bigotry running rampant too far. No wonder the CFC board are arguing against this motion. They were quite happy to have unfettered access to European competition money for four or five years with us handicapped, while they fly under the radar for their part in our discomfort. If this goes to an inquiry then surely the five-way agreement has to be legally exposed. Who's head will fall then? Further, this would lay down the marker for any team to initiate inquiries into the skeletons in any other team's closet. A FIFA inquiry into how CFC was able to acquire the land around Celtic stadium for a pound, for a start? It may be that you have to be careful what you wish for, all things being considered under "sporting integrity" of course. The CFC board surely recognizes what a PR disaster this would be globally for their club.
  10. barca72
    Did we not witness just a few short weeks ago, Mr Lunny suspend a Hearts' player for 'flicking out' at a CFC player? Did we not also witness TLB in the forefront of the cheering section for the couragious actions of Mr. Lunny in his application of the rules? Well then ...
  11. barca72
    Never defeated, always cheated. Lack of class and a 'ned' mentality never leaves you.
  12. barca72
    An eedjit is an eedjit, irrespective.
  13. barca72
    Thank you for explaining that. I think that a reduction of 5-6 M pounds is reasonable, especially since they have no access to European tv money for a few seasons. The only question left to ponder is - Would a new board achieve any better? p.s. The good guys won 1-0.
  14. barca72
    Do you believe that this present board and the new NOMAD are competent enough and able enough to fulfill or come close to fulfilling this task?
  15. barca72
    I would not want to be beholden to the SFA or the cabal for anything. Any money lost through non-participation in Europe could be made up with a few pre-season friendlies.
  16. barca72
    D'Art, Excellent clarity and tenacity. I'm glad you are on our side.
  17. barca72
    Excellent post, D'Art. Keep pounding them, it's the only way they can be stopped. Well done.
  18. barca72
    Oh they can see it alright. What choice do they have? His implications are that he'll keep them afloat by buying a player here and there and losing the odd game to them to keep their fans interested. They will get what is apparently a bigger piece of the Scottish TV revenue, because Celtic will be feeding exclusively on European TV revenues. It's just a question of time before they decide that his arrogance is every bit as unpalatable as was SDM's.
  19. barca72
    This was all they were ever going to get from the day they voted Rangers out of the SPL.
  20. barca72
    I understand the difference between a new share issue and buying existing shares, as far as getting new money for the club. How does King get the club to float this new share issue if the existing shareholders don't wish to have their shareholding diluted? Can it be done without the Board's permission?
  21. barca72
    If any other broadcaster is presenting a match and BBC wish to show that match then they have to pay that other presenter for a highlight package. If their own journalists have put themselves in a position that they can NOT produce a report on a match then BBC show pay the wire services for a report on a match. To not report on a match where there is a greater crowd than all of the SPFL top league teams combined, is hugely biased. They cannot spit the dummy and yet expect to be publicly funded.
  22. barca72
    You're right, there is a lot of 'me,me me' in this Q&A. I think there has to be because he's using this platform to further sell himself to the fans. However, he does give us a bit of vision for Rangers' future. He's giving us a similar type of speech that Whyte and Green gave us to a point, but I find myself wanting to believe that he's genuine. Maybe I'm just weary after the last few years, but still cynical enough to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude. I do hope he brings all the factions together and can do the best for Rangers. We'll see.
  23. barca72
    You'll need to find a spot for Jig. Remember, this is Ally's team.
  24. barca72
    Found this ... Memories ...
  25. barca72
    Baxter and McMillan, 4-2-4, before it was called 4-2-4. Those two were a treat to watch.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.