+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 27-01-2016
Another wee victory over the tanks on our lawn:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mike-ashley-fails-bid-block-7255013#v1TUV1Qcg2YKcrJP.97
RE: RIFC - Fredstersafool - 27-01-2016
You may be winning the battles but will you win the war??
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 27-01-2016
Great news on that, slowly but surely his influence will be driven out!
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 29-01-2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35439391
Who's got an agenda here then. Spiers made a claim about the integrity of the Rangers board members which he was completely unable to corroborate or prove, leaving himself and, more importantly, his employers open to the possibility of being sued for damages by every member of the board.
Why he would make such a claim without evidence is beyond me. Why the newspaper would publish such an accusation without sight of some evidence is beyond insensible. I can only assume he assured them that he had evidence.
Anyway, they quite rightly apologised and the other columnist who undermined the apology - thereby leaving them potentially open to legal action again - deserved the bullet. If she was tweeting solidarity with Spiers it indicates that his apology - as published in order to avoid legal action and the sack - was not heartfelt.
But why would the NUJ be up in arms about one of their members having to withdraw an unfounded accusation? What about journalistic integrity and publishing facts rather than bitter rants and finger points that pander to the baying mob?
RE: RIFC - El Car - 29-01-2016
Let's face it, with the apalling standard of journalism not just prevalent but actively encouraged in the press these days, with the sole purpose of selling advertising space, the NUJ standing up in support of someone making things up is exactly what you'd expect. The British press other and news media are an absolute disgrace these days, even where some of the formerly more reputable and upstanding brands are concerned.
It's actually laughable that they stated "It is outrageous that commercial meddling has led the Herald to sack a respected columnist" when commercial meddling is exactly why people like Spiers and Haggerty even have a job. The only reason they get to write anything is because of the lowlifes who eat up the shite they peddle.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 29-01-2016
The first I've come across a union - and I was a rep for a number of years - actively supporting its members' right to lie and endanger the business they work for in full knowledge that the member is unable to substantiate his claims.
RE: RIFC - El Car - 30-01-2016
(29-01-2016, 23:43)TheWorthinGer Wrote: The first I've come across a union - and I was a rep for a number of years - actively supporting its members' right to lie and endanger the business they work for in full knowledge that the member is unable to substantiate his claims.
This is exactly the problem with the NUJ. As part of the apology and explanation issued by the Herald they said that Spiers had admitted what he said wasn't true, and yet Haggerty (and let's not forget she has a demonstrable anti-Rangers agenda and is an associate and supporter of a prominently known sectarian bigot blogger) still protested about the retraction, and all this despite knowing that persisting with the lie was likely to land her employer in legal trouble. In other words she wanted the paper to deliberately pursue a defamatory lie even after acknowledging that it was a lie. In all honesty I can't think of any situation where an employer would find it acceptable for any employee to intentionally seek to legally damage them in order to pursue a personal agenda, and in a world where it's practically impossible to get sacked it's one of the few situations that would practically guarantee termination of employment.
And yet the NUJ thinks the Herald was wrong in this?? The Herald wasn't "unwilling to stand up for its contributors", it was protecting itself from a suicide bomber.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 30-01-2016
I think the Rangers board were quite soft on them. Let's face it a writ could have been choice number one.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 30-01-2016
So hoisted by his own pertard. I await the pouring of outrage to follow. It's not as if he hasn't got form.
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 30-01-2016
(30-01-2016, 00:00)El Car Wrote:(29-01-2016, 23:43)TheWorthinGer Wrote: The first I've come across a union - and I was a rep for a number of years - actively supporting its members' right to lie and endanger the business they work for in full knowledge that the member is unable to substantiate his claims.
This is exactly the problem with the NUJ. As part of the apology and explanation issued by the Herald they said that Spiers had admitted what he said wasn't true, and yet Haggerty (and let's not forget she has a demonstrable anti-Rangers agenda and is an associate and supporter of a prominently known sectarian bigot blogger) still protested about the retraction, and all this despite knowing that persisting with the lie was likely to land her employer in legal trouble. In other words she wanted the paper to deliberately pursue a defamatory lie even after acknowledging that it was a lie. In all honesty I can't think of any situation where an employer would find it acceptable for any employee to intentionally seek to legally damage them in order to pursue a personal agenda, and in a world where it's practically impossible to get sacked it's one of the few situations that would practically guarantee termination of employment.
And yet the NUJ thinks the Herald was wrong in this?? The Herald wasn't "unwilling to stand up for its contributors", it was protecting itself from a suicide bomber.
The herald was a great paper. Its actually done because of the likes of you.
cheap level 5 etc etc...