Leggat - Rangers Take Legal Action

[aweebluesoandso 290]

This is so true.......

 

League reconstruction will take place on Rangers’ terms or not at all. This is not because the Gers will throw their weight around like a playground bully; actually, it is the very opposite.

 

Part of the Rangers revival is a new understanding within Ibrox that, coupled with a zero tolerance attitude toward the club’s detractors and enemies, Rangers have a responsibility to lead the game in Scotland. This means championing the rights of all clubs and not oppressing the smaller ones.

 

Best sentence i have read in ages.

[plgsarmy 111]

My understanding (and I didn't see the article) is that it could be deemed as offering financial advice and therefore not legal.

[forlanssister 3,062]

If the BBC call Lord McAlpine a pedophile it is very different from you saying it to your next door neighbour or indeed posting it on here. So yes, the proportion of the population who are exposed to it does make a difference.

 

Not in the eyes of the law, a libel is a libel whether one person reads it or millions.

 

I don't know what he wrote, do you?

 

If truth be told there's much worse on his blog than was removed in relation to the IPO. The "Head of Terms" stuff from that c*&t Brennan was far worse.

[ian1964 10,474]

http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/finding_item.asp?LTfindingID=524

 

 

http://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/finding_item.asp?LTfindingID=525

[aweebluesoandso 290]

My understanding (and I didn't see the article) is that it could be deemed as offering financial advice and therefore not legal.

 

Thought you had to registered with one the financial authorities before you could dispense financial advise out?

[craig 5,199]

Thought you had to registered with one the financial authorities before you could dispense financial advise out?

 

You do (usually FSA, but there are others), which is why anyone who states their opinion will also have a disclaimer that it is not financial advice they are giving.

 

If McConville is making suggestions in regards to the IPO but doesnt have the disclaimer attached then it could be construed as financial advice. If someone reading what he writes about an IPO uses it to make an investment, or not make the investment, then it can be construed as financial advice, which I doubt Mcconville is licenced to provide.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

You do (usually FSA, but there are others), which is why anyone who states their opinion will also have a disclaimer that it is not financial advice they are giving.

 

If McConville is making suggestions in regards to the IPO but doesnt have the disclaimer attached then it could be construed as financial advice. If someone reading what he writes about an IPO uses it to make an investment, or not make the investment, then it can be construed as financial advice, which I doubt Mcconville is licenced to provide.

 

I'm sure a few complaints from Rangers supporters to the FSA or whoever, complaining the crooked lawyer McConville has put them off investing in the IPO is being sent already.

[amms 0]

Not in the eyes of the law, a libel is a libel whether one person reads it or millions.

 

 

 

If truth be told there's much worse on his blog than was removed in relation to the IPO. The "Head of Terms" stuff from that c*&t Brennan was far worse.

 

My point wasn't so much about the legality. I'm more intrigued about what message the club actually recognising him sends out (if it did indeed take legal action against him).

I've only seen his website once and I didn't read this piece. From memory he positions himself as someone who speaks on legal matters from a position of knowledge as opposed to a standard blogger signing up to basic Wordpress and positioning himself as a fan with an opinion. By treating him as a 'threat' to be dealt with legally we bestow something on what he writes.

 

It's always struck me that guys like this one, the Rangers Tax Case and the Phil 3 names bloke are simply dying to be taken seriously. They crave recognition and authority. in a way this is giving one of them just that.

As I said at the beginning I'm not sure how I feel about it, it might just simply be the inevitable 'next step' of the internet.

[forlanssister 3,062]

My point wasn't so much about the legality. I'm more intrigued about what message the club actually recognising him sends out (if it did indeed take legal action against him).

I've only seen his website once and I didn't read this piece. From memory he positions himself as someone who speaks on legal matters from a position of knowledge as opposed to a standard blogger signing up to basic Wordpress and positioning himself as a fan with an opinion. By treating him as a 'threat' to be dealt with legally we bestow something on what he writes.

 

It's always struck me that guys like this one, the Rangers Tax Case and the Phil 3 names bloke are simply dying to be taken seriously. They crave recognition and authority. in a way this is giving one of them just that.

As I said at the beginning I'm not sure how I feel about it, it might just simply be the inevitable 'next step' of the internet.

 

As I stated, I read the postings in question and have seen far, far worse and potentially more damaging than those that were removed today.

 

Obviously financial matters are not his strong point (as his personal history ably demonstrates) but I doubt any reasonable person who intended to subscribe to the share offer would not have been swayed not to by reading his posts.

 

I can only imagine someone of high enough standing was sufficiently irked to do something about the content, however like yourself I'm unsure of the wisdom of this particular action as there are far more important targets to aim at.

 

But then the powers that be may be party to information than you or I.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

perhaps it was a sure target for the firs blow or warning shot.,