The Sun apologises for graphic which showed Gerrard and Tav carrying weapons

usbear

Well-Known Member
I can see what they are trying to point out but unless they have Tav or the gaffers permission to do this it’s out of bounds.

Like it or not Tav and Gerrard are brands. If they took a liberty like this with a Nike label they‘d get sued.
 

BrunoBear

Well-Known Member
I can see what they are trying to point out but unless they have Tav or the gaffers permission to do this it’s out of bounds.

Like it or not Tav and Gerrard are brands. If they took a liberty like this with a Nike label they‘d get sued.
Cracked club crests out the question now?
 

oldblueeyes

Well-Known Member
For those that are no offended that’s fine .
I had an issue with it as the very same rag lambasted Ryan Kent last season for his celebrations after scoring at the piggery .
Hypocrisy is my take on it .
Also our manager and captain have done nothing to warrant this .
I for one am glad we complained it’s something I would like us to do more often.
 

Remo-town

Well-Known Member
It sets a bad example to the kids, before they go and play at shooting every f**ker in sight on xbox.

I'm sorry, but our society really has became very sensitive.
 

Remo-town

Well-Known Member
I can see what they are trying to point out but unless they have Tav or the gaffers permission to do this it’s out of bounds.

Like it or not Tav and Gerrard are brands. If they took a liberty like this with a Nike label they‘d get sued.
Brands? I thought they were human beings.
 

Alfredo the great

Well-Known Member
whats offensive is the utterly pathetic doctored graphic.looks like it was done by an eight year old.the club are correct to demand an apology .Rangers should ban them and the record.
 

usbear

Well-Known Member
Brands? I thought they were human beings.
they are human beings with image rights

why do you think Gerrard gets to promote water

why do players get money to wear a certain type of boot

if their image is altered and it affects their ability to make money i could be wrong but I would think there would be case to answer for
 

usbear

Well-Known Member
Cracked club crests out the question now?
Fair point.

I would think if it could be proven to have a negative impact on the brands image or ability to make money then the paper opens itself up for a legal complaint i.e. it’s stupid on their part.
 

TimzRFudz

Well-Known Member
The Sun is a comic, produced by fucking muppets for fucking muppets. Anyone who thinks their "point" needed "illustrated" with a graphic like that is beyond help.
 

Remo-town

Well-Known Member
they are human beings with image rights

why do you think Gerrard gets to promote water

why do players get money to wear a certain type of boot

if their image is altered and it affects their ability to make money i could be wrong but I would think there would be case to answer for
I just think we're getting into a tizzy about nothing.

Its maybe just me. I just hate all this image rights stuff. Just has the feel of people belonging to someone else, although I do realise they're well paid for it, but when you start going down that road you belong to someone else who can make you or break you.
 

SG_Loyal

Well-Known Member
A lot of posters appear to be missing the point completely here.
That gutter rag printed an apology because Rangers, Stevie, Tav or both didn't like the images that were portrayed of them. It doesn't matter if FFers were offended or not, and if you're criticizing the need for a retraction, you're anti- woke sentiments are targeted at Rangers, Tav, Stevie G or all of them. It was a tasteless and pathetic image to print, imo, but you'd expect nothing less from The Sun.
 

erskine bear

Well-Known Member
A lot of posters appear to be missing the point completely here.
That gutter rag printed an apology because Rangers, Stevie, Tav or both didn't like the images that were portrayed of them. It doesn't matter if FFers were offended or not, and if you're criticizing the need for a retraction, you're anti- woke sentiments are targeted at Rangers, Tav, Stevie G or all of them. It was a tasteless and pathetic image to print, imo, but you'd expect nothing less from The Sun.
Yeah this, if the club didn’t like it then it’s their right to seek a retraction.

I don’t see much wrong with it, but as outlined earlier I think it’s more just Rangers flexing their muscle & showing the fans what they can do.
 

SG_Loyal

Well-Known Member
Yeah this, if the club didn’t like it then it’s their right to seek a retraction.

I don’t see much wrong with it, but as outlined earlier I think it’s more just Rangers flexing their muscle & showing the fans what they can do.

It may or may not have been printed with any malicious intent, but it was in poor taste, and I don't think Stevie G is ever going to give that rag the benefit of the doubt.
 

donka

Well-Known Member
It just needs to be in the right context... B-)

n6q9OML.jpg
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Personally I don’t think it’s too bad but I’m not in the pic. If the people or club/company used don’t want to be portrayed like that then it’s fair they raise it and an apology given.
 

Tugay1872

Well-Known Member
You only see paramilitary in there if you really want to. They’ve been shopped on to a British cop.
I agree, that’s the problem though. One half of a demographic/people are going to perceive it thru whatever lens. And I know it’s a cop, same thing tho some people would consider it implies, militarism, totalitarianism, far right etc.

Not my view though :)
 

gmbear

Well-Known Member
Getting a published apology is the important thing here, regardless of whether any one of us thinks it's merited.

The SMSM need to know that if RFC don't like something they've published we'll be on it.
 

Stupid

Active Member
Not offended by it but it's not a very clever thing for them to do. If they wanted to show fortress Ibrox and wanted to show us defending it they should've used a still from Monty Python and the holy grail.
 
Top