54andcounting 0 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Serious question, what do you think that would achieve? A seat for a better person.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 all due respect mate, that's an argument reducto ad absurdum - nobody is talking about stopping free speech; the question is whether we should continue to allow people access to the club whose seeming sole purpose is to piss on us once they are through the doors. They can write what they want from the comfort of their offices, but are you really saying that we should continue to give free access to someone like Spiers who continues to publish defamatory lies which only serve to damage the club? I wouldn't ban English (yet) because I don't think his stuff is malevolent in the way that Spiers' is - but he sure as hell has to be held to account by the club when he writes stuff that is demonstrably wrong. We have to let these people know that there is a price for overstepping the line. I'm all for holding people to account, I'd support legal action if the club are defamed and I've absolutely no problem with the club or the support publicly criticising journalists when they produce something that is wrong. Whilst you aren't arguing against free speech enforcing a ban on someone because you don't like what they write is an attempt to restrict free speech. There are laws in place to protect against against libel, there are no shortage of outlets for the club or the support to voice their displeasure at inaccuracies. Most of all bans simply don't work, they make no discernable difference to the journalist. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I'm all for holding people to account, I'd support legal action if the club are defamed and I've absolutely no problem with the club or the support publicly criticising journalists when they produce something that is wrong. Whilst you aren't arguing against free speech enforcing a ban on someone because you don't like what they write is an attempt to restrict free speech. There are laws in place to protect against against libel, there are no shortage of outlets for the club or the support to voice their displeasure at inaccuracies. Most of all bans simply don't work, they make no discernable difference to the journalist. Legal action should be taken where there is a blatant anti-Rangers agenda by publishing or broadcasting inaccurate or unsubstantiated articles with the aim of damaging Rangers Football Club. There is a world of difference between banning free speech & banning someone from an organisation or publication who has written or broadcast something which they know isn't true but they go ahead regardless knowing no action will result in pursuit of their agenda That is why no mark journos such as English, Spiers & Keevins and BBC Scotland, the Daily Rhebel & Radio Snyde have continued their relentless onslaught over these past few years 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 If we ban all the haters then we will be branded as having a siege mentality...Good!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Legal action should be taken where there is a blatant anti-Rangers agenda by publishing or broadcasting inaccurate or unsubstantiated articles with the aim of damaging Rangers Football Club. There is a world of difference between banning free speech & banning someone from an organisation or publication who has written or broadcast something which they know isn't true but they go ahead regardless knowing no action will result in pursuit of their agenda That is why no mark journos such as English, Spiers & Keevins and BBC Scotland, the Daily Rhebel & Radio Snyde have continued their relentless onslaught over these past few years See, much as it's clearly the sign of a damaged mind being 'anti-Rangers' isn't illegal or even unusual. Are you suggesting we ban people who don't like us, surely that is curtailing free speech? If someone writes or says something that is libellous or slanderous then they can be sued. If it is simply inaccurate a complaint can be made, these avenues are open today and always have been, banning someone doesn't change that. But most importantly choose not to buy it or listen to it. Pure economics will stop it far quicker than any ban will. Rangers are written and spoken about by the media because people are interested, that's the reason it is encouraged, if we were more discerning the problem wouldn't be as big as some thing it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 See, much as it's clearly the sign of a damaged mind being 'anti-Rangers' isn't illegal or even unusual. Are you suggesting we ban people who don't like us, surely that is curtailing free speech?If someone writes or says something that is libellous or slanderous then they can be sued. If it is simply inaccurate a complaint can be made, these avenues are open today and always have been, banning someone doesn't change that. But most importantly choose not to buy it or listen to it. Pure economics will stop it far quicker than any ban will. Rangers are written and spoken about by the media because people are interested, that's the reason it is encouraged, if we were more discerning the problem wouldn't be as big as some thing it is. I cannot & will not accept Rangers being called cheats because we used a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme used by thousands of UK companies. The cheating implication put out on numerous occasions by journalists & media organisations yet Rangers took little or no action. Very disappointing indeed. The other major untruth was that debts acrued during the Advocaat era led to the financial collapse of the oldco. They did not. Whyte not paying over PAYE/NI caused a debt resulting in HMRC refusing a CVA. The debt when PLG became manager stood at £6m which was well done from the £80m or so previously. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Whilst you aren't arguing against free speech enforcing a ban on someone because you don't like what they write is an attempt to restrict free speech. If it were a ban on him/her being published then yes; but in this case it is no such thing. In this case it is simply telling people who deliberately seek to damage the club, "beat it - go and write your lies somewhere else; you're not doing it from here". Why should we extend facilities and information to people whose sole intent is to abuse those facilities and distort that information against us? It's one thing for a journalist to write that McCoist is a crap manager, that we are burning through money faster than is healthy or that our youth policy is a shambles; those are all legitimate areas for debate. It is entirely another thing to allow someone to perpetuate the myth of Rangers FC cheating or to allow someone to continue to broadcast that we are somehow a new club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 If only life was so simple. James Traynor was once banned from Ibrox, how'd it affect his career? Journalists shouldn't be banned in a free society. If you dislike what someone writes then challenge them on it, if that doesn't work then don't read them, don't buy their paper or listen to their show. Understand that writing an article on Rangers almost guarantees readers, whether the journalist is banned or not. We hold the power here, not them. The point is not about banning journalists in general, the point is banning journalists who tell half-truths and publish half- (if not full) lies. Banning them would be the first step. On the day BBC Scotland was castigated for improper reporting, their senior reporter went on telling the public in front of Tynecastle that the administrators of Hearts, BDO, "are the same company that liquidated Rangers". Freedom of speech? People like Scrote should not set a foot into Ibrox for some time, likewise any chap who bring our name into disrepute despite better knowledge. IMHO, it is also part of a free society that somesuch should not be condoned. Do we have the power? What power can you exert over Scrote? You pay him by you license fees and he laughs into your face ( ... just saying). For you cannot dodge this, nor will Rangers fans "not watching the BBC" stop him in any way. I really doubt that boycotting the BBC or e.g. the Daily Record will work, since many people do not exactly view either as a nexus of all things sport, but general information too (whether these are presented eloquently or not). Hence there won't be a broad front ... and they know it. As for Ferguson ... the BBC down south has 20odd other clubs and managers in the EPL to deal with. The Scottish chaps swim in a very small pond and if you bar them from that, what will they do? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 The massive flaws about saying, just don't read them or watch them, is that others do. The damage they are doing is not to Rangers reputation to Rangers fans but to everyone else. We know who will believe all the negative stuff without question but what about the fair minded non-Rangers fan? How are they to know that it is lies and deception they are reading? If they know the newspaper is banned from Ibrox for libelling the club, then they at least have a caveat to what they are reading. And as DB says, how do you starve the BBC of money? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.