forlanssister 3,050 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 The equivalent to the McCoist stuff would be if people were simply calling the Easdales bad directors, when you get into the territory of accusing people of criminal behaviour without producing evidence to back it up we're talking a different game. Ally would have every right to do the same if posters were accusing him of taking bungs from agents for example. Like I said I'm not backing the action, I'd just rather see what a court decides or if they could reach some sort of agreement. Sandy Easdales criminal behaviour has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, so much so the he personally felt compelled to admit to it in the dock at Croydon Crown Court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Are the Eadales on our side? Sure doesn't look like it sadly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What a lot of testosterone filled nonsense from all involved - I would say they are all making our club look stupid. Frankie was spot on when he tweeted this was an unhelpful sideshow. I think most of us on here know that people are responsible for the content of their facebook page - its the primary reason I gave up on it and switched to twitter as I didnt have the time or energy to administer some of the stupid and defamatory comments which were being posted. Im guessing that SOS like everyone else are not above the law - I really cannot understand why they continued to use this vehicle and platform, which was clearly being abused by others - but which they were ultimately responsible for. Its not about opinions/factions being pro/anti board etc - its about the law. That said it would be refreshing if the board went after some of the real enemies of our club as opposed to concerned, albeit ill advised, supporters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Wonder who that might be. IMHO, the above is a veiled attempt at factionalism. Either you are "pro-Houston and against Easdale", or you are "pro anything boardish". Alas, we do not live in a binary-coded world. Away and give us peace, if you can't see it open your eyes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What a lot of testosterone filled nonsense from all involved - I would say they are all making our club look stupid. Frankie was spot on when he tweeted this was an unhelpful sideshow. I think most of us on here know that people are responsible for the content of their facebook page - its the primary reason I gave up on it and switched to twitter as I didnt have the time or energy to administer some of the stupid and defamatory comments which were being posted. Im guessing that SOS like everyone else are not above the law - I really cannot understand why they continued to use this vehicle and platform' date=' which was clearly being abused by others - but which they were ultimately responsible for. Its not about opinions/factions being pro/anti board etc - its about the law. That said it would be refreshing if the board went after some of the real enemies of our club as opposed to concerned, albeit ill advised, supporters.[/quote'] I do not agree that admins of a facebook page should be sued for the comments by others. I do not see why it is acceptable to ruin someone's life because you have more than enough money to do it. This is nothing but Easdale flexing power. I'm hoping this will be laughed out of court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Question the merits of suing but Houston and Chugg willingly put themselves into the public eye, if his life is really at risk of being ruined then surely it's time to give up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Question the merits of suing but Houston and Chugg willingly put themselves into the public eye, if his life is really at risk of being ruined then surely it's time to give up. Surrender? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,257 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Wonder who that might be. IMHO, the above is a veiled attempt at factionalism. Either you are "pro-Houston and against Easdale", or you are "pro anything boardish". Alas, we do not live in a binary-coded world. Away and give us peace, if you can't see it open your eyes. So freedom of speech does have its limits in your world too? A rhethorical question, BTW. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 While having no time for Sandy Easdale who comes across as someone who tries to hide his insecurity behind a tough guy front, I hope that Craig Houston steps back for a while. A couple of weeks ago, Craig was explaining how his parents were upset over a letter that arrived at their home from Easdale's lawyers. I have no idea whether Craig Houston is married or has children but he owes it to himself to consider whether the emotional stress that he must be encountering is worth it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 53 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Did this site sign a gagging order or did it just agree not to allow the offending words. This site chose to stay on the right side of the law, Craig intentionaly chose the confrontational route. The RFFF was not set up to protect people who choose to get on the wrong side of the law. 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.