Priorities, Retweets and Poor Company

[boabie 230]

One would hope that the electorate of Cathcart, etc, duly bring the roof down upon this deluded imbecile.

 

To think that they had Teddy Taylor as an MP for years too. I'm no tory but this clown should be shown the door at the next vote.

[Uilleam 5,395]

To think that they had Teddy Taylor as an MP for years too. I'm no tory but this clown should be shown the door at the next vote.

 

Taylor was defeated by John Maxton (nephew or grandson of the famousClydeside Red, Jimmy Maxton). It was argued that he was the first Presbyterian, or Presbyterian sounding, candidate that Labour had fielded in that constituency, for years, and he was able, thus, to gain the "Orange" and/or Protestant vote, particularly in The 'Mulk.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Uilleam

[26th of foot 5,825]

To think that they had Teddy Taylor as an MP for years too. I'm no tory but this clown should be shown the door at the next vote.

 

The second election of '74 saw the Nationalists secure 11 Westminster seats. Consequently, devolution became the hot topic. Glasgow University hosted a couple of debates on the issue, in the Boyd Orr building. Although attending Strathclyde, we were invited to attend. The line up across the parties was stellar. Donald Dewar, Gordon Brown, and Norman Buchan for Labour. The Tories featured Malcolm Rifkand, George Younger, and Teddy Taylor. The Nats had William Wolfe, George Reid, and Winnie Ewing; whereas, the Liberals fielded David Steel, Ming Campbell, and Jo Grimmond. Undergraduates were hanging from the rafters, we were fully engaged. The level and class of debate could not have been equaled anywhere on these islands at that time.

 

I have never voted Tory, can't see me ever doing it either. However, of all the politicians mentioned above, I was most taken by one aspect of Teddy Taylor, he was a genuine politician of conviction. He had a common touch that Dornan could learn from, Teddy evoked the, 'you don't miss your water until the well runs dry' theme. He spent several minutes talking passionately about the HiHi ie Third Lanark(his club). Career politicians are a curse eg Jim Murphy : began three Degrees, finished none, and never worked outside the Labour Party. This clown held three senior cabinet posts. Our own First Minister, completed her Law degree, then spent half-a-dozen weeks in Drumchapel Law Center, before succumbing to the party machine.

 

Of course, there are more that one out of 129 MSPs that supports Rangers, it's just the party machines reminds them all of their careers, before they answer.

[RANGERRAB 3,252]

no there isn't any chance of the roof collapsing if the supports are removed. The supports actually hold the structure down and are needed only when the stand isn't full. The weight of the crowd is important. That's my understanding of it.

 

Think you'll find supports are used to hold something UP not DOWN. Otherwise they wouldn't be supports would they ?

[boabie 230]

Think you'll find supports are used to hold something UP not DOWN. Otherwise they wouldn't be supports would they ?

 

The supports are there to stop the whole stand from blowing away Rab. If the wind got under it, it would take the roof off. Because the roof is attached to the stand structure the lot would disappear like a kite. When there are punters sitting in the seats the centre of gravity is lowered and stops the stand structure from taking off. From the original design they inserted additional ties to hold the roof on to the structure to prevent it breaking off completely. But no doubts it's the punters holding the whole thing down.

Technically you are both correct - the supports hold the roof onto the stand. They are both holding it up and holding it down from blowing away.

Edited December 13, 2016 by boabie

[RANGERRAB 3,252]

The supports are there to stop the whole stand from blowing away Rab. If the wind got under it, it would take the roof off. Because the roof is attached to the stand structure the lot would disappear like a kite. When there are punters sitting in the seats the centre of gravity is lowered and stops the stand structure from taking off. From the original design they inserted additional ties to hold the roof on to the structure to prevent it breaking off completely. But no doubts it's the punters holding the whole thing down.

Technically you are both correct - the supports hold the roof onto the stand. They are both holding it up and holding it down from blowing away.

 

Regardless of what you say the safety of the whole stand & it's roof looks questionable to me with or without these 'supports' or whatever you want to call them.

And these people think our ground is unsafe ?

[boabie 230]

The latest one gathering momentum on the deluded hoards sites - electricity is only switched on at Ibrox on two days a week until we get our electricity bill down.

Honest injun - a Rangers supporter told him !

[boabie 230]

Regardless of what you say the safety of the whole stand & it's roof looks questionable to me with or without these 'supports' or whatever you want to call them.

And these people think our ground is unsafe ?

 

I couldn't agree more Rab. They tend to forget the number of matches delayed because their roof was either falling to bits or ready to take off.

[BEARGER 1,829]

With regards to Scottish Cup Final debacle, it's only fair to Dornan to say I contacted him and he was in no doubt who to blame I.e. Hibs. On the OP about next Indy vote he makes a very good point, the YES side need to win over not committed NO voters, they won't do that by being anti Rangers. It seems to me that some on YES side believe in the stereotypical Rangers fan and don't think it's worth while canvassing that electorate.

[Uilleam 5,395]

What we have to remember is that the windbracing ties (the pillars) have to be demountable, to allow the fhilth to sell tickets with an uninterrupted view.