Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

No problem. I agree with you, SOS are only making him aware of the strength of feeling amongst the fans. He should be thankful for the information. Notice that the usual suspects are more annoyed about Easedale & Wallace getting emails than the prospect of losing MP and possibly Ibrox.

A prospect that has zero evidence other than paranoia to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If mr easdale was a "smart" guy he would just delete the whole lot and ignore it as "spam mail" that gets sent every day. Then the exercise would have been futile. By reacting it just turns the spotlight on himself. Really not a smart guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I do think it is an effective way to grab their attention.

 

However, This does constitute SPAM & the email addresses of GW & SE should not have been included in the petition. The petition is generating thousands of unsolicited email messages, which is not allowed by law (I believe). If the petition was setup by Mr Houston, then he is the individual responsible for generating the SPAM & the one that will get it in the neck - there is no defence or get out clause or argument as the was with the FB stuff.

 

Applying filters etc does not stop the msgs clogging up the Rangers mail system - which the IT dept have take care of, not Mr Easdale.

 

An important point is....Where is the legal action originating from??? Is it from the real victim of the SPAM - Rangers, or is it a another personal action from Mr Easdale??? I don't believe any personal action would hold up - the emails are not directed personally @ Mr Easdale. However, the club would have a strong case (unless the emails stop...)

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't agree with the actions being reported - FROM EITHER SIDE.

 

I'm not convinced it is Spam at all.

 

Each message was generated by an individual and spam is generally sent to multiple recipients, not just 2.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

If mr easdale was a "smart" guy he would just delete the whole lot and ignore it as "spam mail" that gets sent every day. Then the exercise would have been futile. By reacting it just turns the spotlight on himself. Really not a smart guy

 

I don't think anyone is coming out of this looking very smart.

 

The recipients of the petition emails should either have done as you say and delete + block those emails or else set up a new folder in their inbox and create a new message rule which would instantly move all of those emails as well as any future ones from that sender to the new folder. If they'd done that there would have been absolutely no need to get irate about it or overreact by taking legal action.

 

From another point of view though, whoever set up the petition hasn't acted in a way best described as 'smart' either because they could have set up the petition without the options checked for sending out emails upon every registered signature. In the days before online petitions people had to go round their family, friends, neighbours and stand down their local high streets, shopping centres etc with a clipboard to get signatures on their petition.

 

What they certainly didn't do was run to the post office with a letter every time they got a new signature. Instead, they waited until they reached their target number of signatures on the petition, then sent it off saying "you need to listen to us because we have 10,000 signatures".

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's BS. So if someone sets a bomb in your house which will only go off if you switch on your bathroom light then when you switch it on then it's your fault. You triggered the bomb and ignorance is no defence? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

 

Your analogy is the wrong way round and you are juxtaposing perpetrator and victim. What would be the crime you had committed and what would you be charged with if you switched on the light detonating the bomb that somebody had planted?

 

if *you* do something illegal, ignorance of the law is no defense. Thus if you caused an email to be sent to SE by your actions and/or by your failure to read the small print on the website, that's no defense and you are guilty because you are the sender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • 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.