Rangers tell Graham Spiers & Chris McLaughlin they are "no longer welcome at Ibrox"

[trublusince1982 243]

good, dont let the door hit you on the way out.

 

 

Whats the betting they still keep the Rangers page and still cover all our games and all the usual bigoted hatred they spew.

Please BBC scotland never allow any of your jurnos to report on us in any fashion again, it would be doing the country a great service.

Edited August 1, 2015 by trublusince1982

[Bluedell 5,356]

A big mistake by BBC Scotland. It's an over-reaction that they may come to regret.

[pete 2,499]

A big mistake by BBC Scotland. It's an over-reaction that they may come to regret.

 

I don't see why. They get their money whether people watch or not. A system that attracts poor Quality. Shit I just made an anti socialist statement.

[Germinal 27]

While it's pleasurable at a teenage level to tell baldy to sling his hook it doesn't achieve anything, while a focused PR drive mocking his output in humourous style would - journos love publicity, but they detest not being taken seriously.

 

I can't help but be forever grateful to the present board for saving the club from the nightmare, this is childish nonsense, much like McLoughlin's work.

[Rousseau 9,508]

To be honest, I dislike the idea of banning press as it sets a very bad precedent. However, according to the article we are not banning the press, simply two individuals, which is not uncommon for football clubs. It's a shame BBC Scotland -- is it BBC Scotland or BBC as a whole? -- have felt the need to do this; it does feel like an over-reaction, but I think they're tied to an extent: they have to support their employees, and I suppose they won't possibly admit that we have a point.

 

Would it not have been better to criticise the publications of Spiers and McLaughlin, and therefore draw attention to future articles, rather than banning them? Banning them feels right, but is it the best thing to do?

[der Berliner 3,290]

Ain't it more "BBCeltland" rather that "BBC Scotland" that we speak about, i.e. their Sports Department? The same folk that Archie MacPherson was left wondering about in 2008, when they - watching the game in the BBC Scotland's HQ canteen - collectivly jumped up in celebration when St. Petersburg scored at the EL final against us?

 

Reporters and journos get quite a bit of freedom - if not to say unapposed leeway - in the stuff they do. Sometimes stuff that normal folk may get sentenced for. Yet, we should keep in mind here that this banned journo has not been doing his rounds in IS-land or working for Amnesty International in some remote Chinese village. He is doing his work in Scotland and does not only have rights and freedoms, but also a certain obligation. ESPECIALLY if he is working for a company that epitomizes these journalistic obligations and duties from their humbly beginnings onwards.

 

In doing what they are doing, Rangers have underlined their concerns with some action. That the cabal at Pacific Quay followed suit does not come as a surprise. You do wonder though whether Rangers action will cause some eyes down at the BBC's London HQ to open and to cast a glance north of the border.

[chilledbear 16]

I didn't know Keith Jackson had been banned by celtic.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/scotland/article4514685.ece

 

Even better news

[Bluedell 5,356]

I don't see why. They get their money whether people watch or not. A system that attracts poor Quality. Shit I just made an anti socialist statement.

 

They now appear childish. Rather than turning round to Rangers and trying to resolve whatever issues the club has, they have thrown their toys out the pram.

 

They are a public company and are not behaving like it. The bitter bigots at BBC Scotland are not following their own charter.

 

3. The BBC’s public nature and its objects

(1)The BBC exists to serve the public interest.

(2)The BBC’s main object is the promotion of its Public Purposes.

 

4.The Public Purposes

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

©stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

 

They are not representing Scotland by failing to engage with the biggest supported club in the country and are not serving the public interest.

 

The actions of the guys who made this decision are acting against the requirements of their own charter and give us plenty of scope for complaining and highlighting the bias of the public organisation.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,356]

I do not agree with banning Journos, I believe in taking them on.

 

The initial emotion is legitimate, 'good and about time'. However, he will become a martyr and a cause celebre.

 

Infuriating too in a way. Spiers is reduced to a weekly column in the Herald and a half hour golf spot on BBC Radio Scotland. Suddenly, he is high profile again.

 

I hope the club spells on the reasoning for the ban, and I hope they have got their ducks in a row?

 

Spiers has been at it for around 15 years. Although he has become marginalised to an extent, that's more from his lack of ability than anything else. He should have been banned sine die over a decade ago and not have to offer him any sort of hospitality or see him swanning around the main stand on a match day.

 

He's not someone I'd invite into my house and I don't see why we should allow him into the stadium for free.

 

We are correct in banning him.