Dave King

[drumbaran]

Under no circumstances should Rangers have any further dealings with that vile organisation.

Do posters on here honestly think BBC Scotland want to report anything remotely positive about our club.

They absolutely despise us.

 

[dennyperkins]

I remember the McCoist MadMen incident and the Ibrox in a dirty puddle video, I seldom watch the BBC so can someone recap on Gollum's crimes?

I can't remember his previous indiscretions but the final straw was the Petrofac Cup match against Hibs at Easter Rd.
It was Warburton's 1st test against our supposed biggest challengers and a great match with Rangers winning 6-2 Gollum's match report was to do with something like 3 Rangers supporters being arrested.
He may have added more negativity in his report that I can't recall.

 

[weetam3106]

Bbc will never be anthing other than Rangers haters, unless you remove the presenters and most of the staff. So in other words nothing will change.

What we need to do is up the anti, make life as hard as we can for them. Make fun at there many mistakes openly.

This HAS to be true because by now were a bear involved behind the scenes the truth would have come out in one form or another.

Bbc Scotland by and for Rangers haters. Scotland’s second shame.

 

[Ponientebear]

He does matter because he's a symbol of the BBC's bias and hatred of our club. We're not in a bunker and we cannot and must not allow him back in.
Of course the BBC can open talks but allowing him in cannot form part of any solution.

I respect the opposing views but can anyone explain what happens if we agree to reinstate the slimy wee creeps press pass and he comes out with more lies or biased reporting?

1. We have removed a reporter's press pass.

2. His employers have boycotted us in an almost unprecedented manner.

3. Listening to `Tom Irish and the rest of the bigots gloating is simply not an option. A minor irritation my ass.

This is what I don’t get about those basically advocating allowing this mob to go back to square one were instead of rubbishing us while a self imposed ban is in place they can still do it if we give one of their many haters his press privileges back.
Again the BBC are more than happy to keep this self imposed ban going.

 

[Geoff Hurst]

Wilkinsvolley I respect your point of view but frankly the people your asking Rangers to reason with have no intention of seeing our point of view
And I'm afraid the BBC no longer has the respect that maybe they once had
It has outgrown it's purpose and should no longer be publicly funded
As for the argument that some Rangers fans hate the BBC more than they love Rangers is absurd. I think people are angry that they have to pay by law to people who openly hate our club
As it's Saturday afternoon I'm going for a pint everyone enjoy your day

 

[BrooklynBlue]

There are literally thousands of media sources available, the days of the BBC being needed are long gone.

True but none as easily accessible to the general populace.

FF constantly references how they've taken over every walk of Scottish life. Yet the response seems to be turning inward and accepting it.

 

[Turrabear]

So you're suggesting we forget the BBC rather than challenging and attempting to change their output?

To change peoples out put as you put it means that people want to change the bbc don,t.as i said in a reply to wilkins volley.you look at the bbcs sports presenters they are mostly rangers haters ,irish,golum ,dick gorden ,cosgrove unless there is a change in their attidute towards rangers then it is pointless having an dialogue with them.haters need to hate unfortunately they have a very public podeum to spout their hate.
As for challenging their out put you don,t have to let them back in to do that there is more than one broadcasting company in the uk.also soical media is replacing the printed word.what we are missing is a good pr company.

 

[Turrabear]

The bbc are a hugely respected broadcaster. Sitting back and accepting our biggest rivals being promoted and us sidelined isn’t an option if we want to rebuild the brand. I said earlier it might not be possible with certain people at the top of the bbc just now but we can’t just make an enemy of the bbc forever more. That just ensures whoever is promoted will have the same attitude towards Rangers as their predecessors. It’s about building bridges where possible. But there’s the problem. Some of our fans hate the bbc more than they love Rangers.

Wilkinsvolley you are the nevile chamberlain of follow follow.

 

[BrooklynBlue]

To change peoples out put as you put it means that people want to change the bbc don,t.as i said in a reply to wilkins volley.you look at the bbcs sports presenters they are mostly rangers haters ,irish,golum ,dick gorden ,cosgrove unless there is a change in their attidute towards rangers then it is pointless having an dialogue with them.haters need to hate unfortunately they have a very public podeum to spout their hate.
As for challenging their out put you don,t have to let them back in to do that there is more than one broadcasting company in the uk.also soical media is replacing the printed word.what we are missing is a good pr company.

To change attitudes, you have to have a dialogue.

On the one hand, you say they have a "very public podium" but you seem content to dismiss their influence and importance. A good PR company would challenge and question the BBC. I'd rather that than allow them to go unchecked.

 

[Buffalo]

True but none as easily accessible to the general populace.

FF constantly references how they've taken over every walk of Scottish life. Yet the response seems to be turning inward and accepting it.

For the vast majority, if not all of the 13-40 year old age bracket would have easier access to Facebook, Twitter, Online Journalists, Online Highlight packages, online interviews and online news.

Thats at the tip of the fingertip, thats when they want it, they dont need to sit infront of a telly , wait until 6:45pm or whenever sportscene is on.

Online sense, BBC has thousands of competitors who we can use.

The BBC are outdated, and quite frankly not needed and in 15-20 years will be obsolete.

 

[Turrabear]

The bbc are a hugely respected broadcaster. Sitting back and accepting our biggest rivals being promoted and us sidelined isn’t an option if we want to rebuild the brand. I said earlier it might not be possible with certain people at the top of the bbc just now but we can’t just make an enemy of the bbc forever more. That just ensures whoever is promoted will have the same attitude towards Rangers as their predecessors. It’s about building bridges where possible. But there’s the problem. Some of our fans hate the bbc more than they love Rangers.

The bbc may still be a highly respect broadcaster .but i doubt thst bbc scotland are considered the bastion of truth.

 

[BrooklynBlue]

For the vast majority, if not all of the 13-40 year old age bracket would have easier access to Facebook, Twitter, Online Journalists, Online Highlight packages, online interviews and online news.

Thats at the tip of the fingertip, thats when they want it, they dont need to sit infront of a telly , wait until 6:45pm or whenever sportscene is on.

Online sense, BBC has thousands of competitors who we can use.

The BBC are outdated, and quite frankly not needed and in 15-20 years will be obsolete.

Your solution is to ignore them and wait until they die out. It's hardly a proactive policy. And there's a large percentage of supporters above 40 years old.

How many RTV subscribers are there?

 

[Turrabear]

To change attitudes, you have to have a dialogue.

On the one hand, you say they have a "very public podium" but you seem content to dismiss their influence and importance. A good PR company would challenge and question the BBC. I'd rather that than allow them to go unchecked.

So we gave these people chance after chance but they still continued to try and damage the rangers brand and you want to have dialouge with these people.at least we agree that we need a good pr company.one last thing we didn,t ban any one they banned themselves.so why have dialouge with them we did nothing wrong so it would be up to them to come to us.
I honestly don,t understand why you could ever think we can compromise with the bbc even if we did it would simply be a short term thing .think even you would agree on that.

 

[The_Irrepressibles]

The bbc ma could and should have y still be a highly respect broadcaster .but i doubt thst bbc scotland are considered the bastion of truth.

Yeah. Let's not get the two confused. We're talking about Pacific Quay exclusively here. Although it's true BBC bosses in London could and should have stepped in and investigated this by now.

 

[BrooklynBlue]

So we gave these people chance after chance but they still continued to try and damage the rangers brand and you want to have dialouge with these people.at least we agree that we need a good pr company.one last thing we didn,t ban any one they banned themselves.so why have dialouge with them we did nothing wrong so it would be up to them to come to us.
I honestly don,t understand why you could ever think we can compromise with the bbc even if we did it would simply be a short term thing .think even you would agree on that.

Do you continue this attitude with the SFA and SPFL?

As you highlight, they are damaging the "brand" - wouldn't you want to place a halt to it? You don't have to respect an organisation to do business with them if it's to the benefit of the Club.

 

[Turrabear]

Your solution is to ignore them and wait until they die out. It's hardly a proactive policy. And there's a large percentage of supporters above 40 years old.

How many RTV subscribers are there?

So are the bbc the only broadcasters in the uk .no they are not .how many people over 40 have a mobile phone .i would asume a good few.no one is saying ignore them but until there is a change in attitute and personal at the bbc things won,t change.

 

[IrvineLoyal]

Feck the BBC and all who sail in her

Exactly the way I feel about the situation

 

[JD1872]

To me the future is a combination of RTV and podcasts such as H & H, it would be good if the club could provide radio commentary of the games through an app

We really don’t need the bbc, I used to listen to their coverage a lot but now the thought would not even occur to me

 

[Buffalo]

Your solution is to ignore them and wait until they die out. It's hardly a proactive policy. And there's a large percentage of supporters above 40 years old.

How many RTV subscribers are there?

My "solution" is not to engage with them at all.

Sucking timmy cock for the sake of about 1% of people who solely rely on BBC for news, updates and Highlights is just ridiculous.

 

[BrooklynBlue]

My "solution" is not to engage with them at all.

Sucking timmy cock for the sake of about 1% of people who solely rely on BBC for news, updates and Highlights is just ridiculous.

RTV supply all of the things you could want about the Club such as news, interviews, highlights, archives - how many subscribers do we have?

The BBC are still by and far the most easily accessible broadcaster. It's business.

Should we engage with the SFA, SPFL and other Scottish clubs?

 

[Turrabear]

Do you continue this attitude with the SFA and SPFL?

As you highlight, they are damaging the "brand" - wouldn't you want to place a halt to it? You don't have to respect an organisation to do business with them if it's to the benefit of the Club.

That is true .but you have to trust an organisation you do business with.as for the sfa/spfl we are members of the two organisations we don,t have a choice in that matter .we do have a choice in dealing with the bbc.

 

[Turrabear]

RTV supply all of the things you could want about the Club such as news, interviews, highlights, archives - how many subscribers do we have?

The BBC are still by and far the most easily accessible broadcaster. It's business.

Should we engage with the SFA, SPFL and other Scottish clubs?

We are members of the sfa/spfl we don,t have a choice in the matter.so what exactly has this to do with the bbc.

 

[Hobjo]

He does matter because he's a symbol of the BBC's bias and hatred of our club. We're not in a bunker and we cannot and must not allow him back in.
Of course the BBC can open talks but allowing him in cannot form part of any solution.

I respect the opposing views but can anyone explain what happens if we agree to reinstate the slimy wee creeps press pass and he comes out with more lies or biased reporting?

1. We have removed a reporter's press pass.

2. His employers have boycotted us in an almost unprecedented manner.

3. Listening to `Tom Irish and the rest of the bigots gloating is simply not an option. A minor irritation my ass.

Depending on what McLaughlin reports (if it really is a lie, or just a distortion or whether in truth it’s something we find inconvenient) we challenge it publicly. We have our own digital channels, we have the right to reply on the BBC and there are avenues of complaint to take. If it merits it, the law is open to you. All of these are far more effective than excluding a reporter which creates a situation where anything can be said about us unchallenged. The definition of pyrrhic .

1. removing his accreditation is tantamount to banning him. It’s wilfully naive to think differently.
2. Two can play at that game. If we haven’t banned McLaughlin, then the BBC aren’t boycotting us. They are merely showing solidarity with their employee and refusing to let one organisation dictate how a free media organisation conducts its business. In other circumstances I would applaud this.

The BBC have acted the only way they could. People bring up examples of Spence and Dundee but frankly the comparison is a joke. Dundee don’t matter as much as we do and what can be overlooked and quietly resolved with them cannot for us. It goes with the territory of being the biggest club in the land.

3. It would be harder for them to pedal lies and myths if we had a spokesman being aired too. Sometimes pride isn’t the smartest motivator, not the most constructive starting point, certainly not for an organisation trying to operate effectively.

The fact of the matter is the club know this and the BBC know this and that is why they are clearly seeking a compromise everyone can live with.

 

[Buffalo]

RTV supply all of the things you could want about the Club such as news, interviews, highlights, archives - how many subscribers do we have?

The BBC are still by and far the most easily accessible broadcaster. It's business.

Should we engage with the SFA, SPFL and other Scottish clubs?

The internet is far easier to access than a TV station.

And if you can access BBC on TV, You can access STV, So straight away you are wrong.

Your whole point was maybe correct 25 years ago , now your not even close.

There are lots and lots of easier ways to access information, see highlights and see reactions and news than the BBC, Thats a fact

Your other point is just stupid tbh, there is something in it for us to engage with them, we are a member with a voice in those organisations - there is nothing to gain from dealing with the BBC

*unless you are sitting in a croft, way way up in the highlands, with a wee tv getting 4 tv channels and no phones or internet*

 

[Wilkinsvolley]

The bbc may still be a highly respect broadcaster .but i doubt thst bbc scotland are considered the bastion of truth.

Not in Scotland but their coverage will be used by other parts of the bbc and other broadcasters. It’s simple, Rangers needs to try to get fair coverage or it’s just another obstacle in our rebuilding job. It really is only common sense so I’ve said enough on it.

 

[Mexi]

Yeah. Let's not get the two confused. We're talking about Pacific Quay exclusively here. Although it's true BBC bosses in London could and should have stepped in and investigated this by now.

London will have asked why this has happened, and got a loaded answer from Glasgow. And accepted it

They rarely find fault with themselves. If you've tried to lodge a complaint, you'd know the procedure they use to bury negative feedback

 

[skorn]

Depending on what McLaughlin reports (if it really is a lie, or just a distortion or whether in truth it’s something we find inconvenient) we challenge it publicly. We have our own digital channels, we have the right to reply on the BBC and there are avenues of complaint to take. If it merits it, the law is open to you. All of these are far more effective than excluding a reporter which creates a situation where anything can be said about us unchallenged. The definition of pyrrhic .

1. removing his accreditation is tantamount to banning him. It’s wilfully naive to think differently.
2. Two can play at that game. If we haven’t banned McLaughlin, then the BBC aren’t boycotting us. They are merely showing solidarity with their employee and refusing to let one organisation dictate how a free media organisation conducts its business. In other circumstances I would applaud this.

The BBC have acted the only way they could. People bring up examples of Spence and Dundee but frankly the comparison is a joke. Dundee don’t matter as much as we do and what can be overlooked and quietly resolved with them cannot for us. It goes with the territory of being the biggest club in the land.

3. It would be harder for them to pedal lies and myths if we had a spokesman being aired too. Sometimes pride isn’t the smartest motivator, not the most constructive starting point, certainly not for an organisation trying to operate effectively.

The fact of the matter is the club know this and the BBC know this and that is why they are clearly seeking a compromise everyone can live with.

That's a good post Hobjo.

But when you look at point #2 that you make, I know that better minds than my own have examined the BBC Charter and voiced the opinion that the BBC aren't really entitled to so dramatically reduce their coverage to such a large license-paying fanbase.

In that respect, they are unlike other "free media" organisations, because they are beholden to their Charter.

You state that the BBC have acted the only way that they could and then knock back the comparison of Spence and Dundee as "a joke".
But ... it IS a fair comparison. A Scottish club, and withdrawal of press privileges from a BBC journo. With the BBC continuing as usual, with a replacement journo.

Are we to take it then that because we are a bigger club than Dundee, that BBC Scotland will always treat us differently, in an adverse manner ?

Your third point of a deal therefore allowing us to have "a spokesman being aired too" is a good one.
However, since one of the complaints that we had against the BBC was in them consciously re-editing footage of our then manager to produce a broadcast item that thus became injuriously inaccurate ..

What would we do if they did the same again?
Complain ?
Just let them continue on, because occasionally we can get a word in edgeways?

I think not.

As I've said, we expect BBC Scotland to do this, because they have been transmogrified into a nest of Rangers-hating vermin.

What fans don't expect is their Club sitting back and doing f**k all about the appalling PR we have.
Hopefully it's being sorted.
If not, expect more from the sh*tehawks at PQ.
Whether a deal is reached or not.

 

[High Society]

Depending on what McLaughlin reports (if it really is a lie, or just a distortion or whether in truth it’s something we find inconvenient) we challenge it publicly. We have our own digital channels, we have the right to reply on the BBC and there are avenues of complaint to take. If it merits it, the law is open to you. All of these are far more effective than excluding a reporter which creates a situation where anything can be said about us unchallenged. The definition of pyrrhic .

1. removing his accreditation is tantamount to banning him. It’s wilfully naive to think differently.
2. Two can play at that game. If we haven’t banned McLaughlin, then the BBC aren’t boycotting us. They are merely showing solidarity with their employee and refusing to let one organisation dictate how a free media organisation conducts its business. In other circumstances I would applaud this.

The BBC have acted the only way they could. People bring up examples of Spence and Dundee but frankly the comparison is a joke. Dundee don’t matter as much as we do and what can be overlooked and quietly resolved with them cannot for us. It goes with the territory of being the biggest club in the land.

3. It would be harder for them to pedal lies and myths if we had a spokesman being aired too. Sometimes pride isn’t the smartest motivator, not the most constructive starting point, certainly not for an organisation trying to operate effectively.

The fact of the matter is the club know this and the BBC know this and that is why they are clearly seeking a compromise everyone can live with.

I've already said he is banned in earlier posts, nothing naive about my views.

You've lost the plot if you think it's ok for us to be treated more aggressively because we're a bigger club. Theyre a national broadcaster and they have a duty to be consistent and impartial.

I think would be a joke to even consider lifting his ban.

 

[Hobjo]

That's a good post Hobjo.

But when you look at point #2 that you make, I know that better minds than my own have examined the BBC Charter and voiced the opinion that the BBC aren't really entitled to so dramatically reduce their coverage to such a large license-paying fanbase.

In that respect, they are unlike other "free media" organisations, because they are beholden to their Charter.

You state that the BBC have acted the only way that they could and then knock back the comparison of Spence and Dundee as "a joke".
But ... it IS a fair comparison. A Scottish club, and withdrawal of press privileges from a BBC journo. With the BBC continuing as usual, with a replacement journo.

Are we to take it then that because we are a bigger club than Dundee, that BBC Scotland will always treat us differently, in an adverse manner ?

Your third point of a deal therefore allowing us to have "a spokesman being aired too" is a good one.
However, since one of the complaints that we had against the BBC was in them consciously re-editing footage of our then manager to produce a broadcast item that thus became injuriously inaccurate ..

What would we do if they did the same again?
Complain ?
Just let them continue on, because occasionally we can get a word in edgeways?

I think not.

As I've said, we expect BBC Scotland to do this, because they have been transmogrified into a nest of Rangers-hating vermin.

What fans don't expect is their Club sitting back and doing f**k all about the appalling PR we have.
Hopefully it's being sorted.
If not, expect more from the sh*tehawks at PQ.
Whether a deal is reached or not.

I’d be surprised if the BBC charter didn’t include something on could point to in terms of independence and not allowing any pressure or influence on its journalism. Also, if they truly were in breach of the charter by not covering us, then presumably that avenue would have been explored and BBC Scotland censured. But it hasn’t been

The Dundee example is just a case of how things work in real life. My point is adequately proven by the fact the situation with Spence was fairly quickly resolved. Because it was nothing like as heightened. It’s no good saying “everything should be equal” because that’s just not the way the world works. There are too many other factors at play, not least of which the club had been in a contentious relationship with the BBC and and other media for years previously.

Anyway, I’m just repeating myself now

 

[Bordersbear]

To me the future is a combination of RTV and podcasts such as H & H, it would be good if the club could provide radio commentary of the games through an app

We really don’t need the bbc, I used to listen to their coverage a lot but now the thought would not even occur to me

This should be the next step for RTV with our own internet radio station. They are already providing commentary for viewers why not extend it to audio for those not subscribed to RTV.

 

[High Society]

I’d be surprised if the BBC charter didn’t include something on could point to in terms of independence and not allowing any pressure or influence on its journalism. Also, if they truly were in breach of the charter by not covering us, then presumably that avenue would have been explored and BBC Scotland censured. But it hasn’t been

The Dundee example is just a case of how things work in real life. My point is adequately proven by the fact the situation with Spence was fairly quickly resolved. Because it was nothing like as heightened. It’s no good saying “everything should be equal” because that’s just not the way the world works. There are too many other factors at play, not least of which the club had been in a contentious relationship with the BBC and and other media for years previously.

Anyway, I’m just repeating myself now

You haven't proved anything. It's wrong to treat us differently and nothing you say will make it right,

 

[Hobjo]

You haven't proved anything. It's wrong to treat us differently and nothing you say will make it right,

Mate, you don't get it. I'm not saying it's "right" just like I'm not saying McLaughlin didn't deserve to be banned. There was ample cause in my opinion.

The point I'm making is far more practical though. There is a situation which I believe is doing us more harm than it is the BBC. It therefore cannot continue.

 

[The_Irrepressibles]

Man I really want to know what King was doing there if he really was. We know he was in Glasgow and at Ibrox on Wednesday but has it been confirmed he was at Pacific Quay (sorry if I missed this on thread). Seems it's pretty hush hush right now if he was.

 

[High Society]

Mate, you don't get it. I'm not saying it's "right" just like I'm not saying McLaughlin didn't deserve to be banned. There was ample cause in my opinion.

The point I'm making is far more practical though. There is a situation which I believe is doing us more harm than it is the BBC. It therefore cannot continue.

I do get it but don't agree with your idea.

Had a look back and if you check you will see that after the first situation with Gollum the BBC statec that they would try to be fairer to us.

He ignored that, they failed to control him so we banned him.

What would normally happen is that the BBC would try to show some humility, impartiality and decency in their coverage of our club. They chose to do the opposite and boycotted us.

 

[onedadoprso.1]

given today's communications technology I can not understand why Mr king is going there in person.

its their self imposed ban, let that be made clear if they are going to end it.

 

[Colinrfc2]

Gollum has not been banned we have not banned anybody from the bbc , its them that have the problem not us

 

[skorn]

I’d be surprised if the BBC charter didn’t include something on could point to in terms of independence and not allowing any pressure or influence on its journalism. Also, if they truly were in breach of the charter by not covering us, then presumably that avenue would have been explored and BBC Scotland censured. But it hasn’t been

Problem with that is that --- as you have stated -- a similar circumstance had already arisen with Dundee FC, Spence and the BBC ... with everything being worked out fine.
I think it's difficult to frame the removal of a journo's press privileges as undue pressure or influence. Again, the Dundee case shows that it was not seen that way with them ... but it is with Rangers ?

As for the Charter, it does demand that they broadcast fairly and accurately.
As John Gow mentioned in a Rangers Standard article at the time of the McCoist/Mad Men wheeze, there's
"grounds for a real enquiry into an element within BBC Scotland, that are acting unprofessionally and putting their own personal feelings or opinions before the BBC guidelines when it comes to Rangers.

All they need to do is list every incident on an official BBC document [the incidents that we perceive to be anti-Rangers] and justify each one as a single occurrence.


But if they do, regardless of the outcome, the list itself might be all the evidence anyone needs that something is not quite right within BBC Pacific Quay."

The avenue of the Charter has never been explored properly because it's only the BBC and Rangers who are parties to it -- fans are simply ignored.
If the Club cannot be bothered to get off their happy ar*es and stand up for themselves by exposing the gleeful bias now endemic at BBC Scotland, we fans can only look on.

As I say -- you can expect it of BBC Scotland.
But should we not expect our Club to defend the name of Rangers ???