Hearts Heritage Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman article on GS comments about VR had the following well argued response which has now mysteriously disappeared. http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Smith-at-a-loss-to.4365573.jp I don't think there can be any doubt in Smith's mind as to what all of Scotland, outwith the Old Firm, think about the clear favouritism (aka bias, aka cheating) that benefits the "big two" when they're playing anyone else, on a weekly basis. So to claim that he has no comprehension of what Romanov is getting at by referring to a "Scottish mafia" running football to the benefit of the Old Firm is, quite frankly, laughable. If he realy is that stupid, this job is too big for him. And if he's not really really stupid, he's a liar. Let me explain it in words of one syllable or fewer for you, Mr. Smith. The top level referees and most of the blazers come almost exclusively from Glasgow and the immediate surroundings. Most have some kind of a link to one or other of the Old Firm - whether ex player, fan or whatever. They all know that things are best for them, financially and otherwise, when the "big two" are doing well. Therefore, they make it happen - and there's no doubt in my mind that Rangers benefit from the majority of the favouritism. After all, they are the "establishment's club". As Levein said, it's not allowed that anyone could possibly be allowed to beat Rangers in Glasgow in a game that Rangers need to win. You're all in cahoots, Smith. We all know it, and that's what Romanov is saying. You're cheating every non-Old Firm fan out of all the hard-earned cash, time, and emotion, that they pour into their own clubs when there's never any chance of a level playing field while you lot are running things. I don't know how many people have given support to Levein in private over McCurrygate, but from a fan's point of view, I'd really like to hear a bit more by way of public support from other clubs. Only Jimmy Calderwood has said anything much in support, but going head to head with the blazers over this will be to the benefit of all of us in the long run. If something doesn't happen now, it's hard to see when it might ever happen. Strength in numbers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman article on GS comments about VR had the following well argued response which has now mysteriously disappeared. http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Smith-at-a-loss-to.4365573.jp If that has been removed, censorship indeed. Is the Hootsman running scared that it can be held liable for a comment left on its site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Heritage Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 Some other comments GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,07/08/2008 00:11:57 So the BBC asks Romanov leading questions so they can get the headline they need when they, Romanov and everyone watching knows full well what he'll say. What's the point? Romanov's a mischief-maker - you can see him, and his interpreter (and Jim Spence) smiling away and collapsing into full-scale giggles at the end. Romanov and Levein are the only people in the Scottish game right now willing to tell it like it is. Maybe instead of the media writing their stories then asking the questions to try to get answers they can then place into their stories, they could investigate refs in Scotland, look back over games involving the OF to see if there is bias and generally do some digging to either prove Romanov (and Crag Levein and all non-OF fans) is right that the league is run for the benefit of the OF or to prove him wrong. But then that would be real journalism... Report Unsuitable 3 Ex-Pat Stanton, Melbourne 07/08/2008 00:21:55 Is it also Fair Gordon, that we the spectators and fans expect the (now very well paid) referees to actually do their jobs instead of, as Craig Levien so elloquently put it, 'bottling it' against a certain couple of folk singing parties in the west??? Remember Smithy, there's no Mafia in Scotland, according to you anyway. You'd know of course, as an ex Rangers player without any background in business whatsoever how little your former employer affected your elevation through the business side of the GFA... Report Unsuitable 4 Aitchie, Glebe 07/08/2008 00:28:40 #3 I think he does have a bit of a business background, but he's a goose anyway. Report Unsuitable 5 lesmajambo, Lesmahagow 07/08/2008 01:11:57 Can you tell me if Smith is paying the Ref's extra on behalf of the SFA or on behalf of the old firm? Sorry, I forgot they were unbiased and give as many decisions to the other ten teams in the league as they do Rankgers and Celtic, why do you think these two come top of the fair play tables regularly. (Even although they have pitched battles at least four times a year.) Report Unsuitable 6 GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?, 07/08/2008 03:06:19 Instead of asking Smith what he thinks of Romanov's comments (although if he says he can't understand them then Romanov can hardly be censured!) why not ask him a) if he thinks it's good for our league to be dominated by two teams and what he thinks can be done to make the league more competitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 If that has been removed, censorship indeed. Is the Hootsman running scared that it can be held liable for a comment left on its site? I think you may be bang on there. The chap has said "GS is either really stupid or is a Liar" ! I think they may fear that remark puts them on dodgy ground ? Total nonsense if thats the case ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Heritage Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 ,...... The chap has said "GS is either really stupid or is a Liar" !...... He could be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 It would seem a number of articles have had the comment facility withdrawn. I contributed one this morning complaining about the OF fans being able to comment on non-OF articles while OF articles did not have the comment facility. Now I know why they don't have the facility is because they usually quickly deteriorate into a bigoted and sectarian shambles but why deny non-OF fans the opportunity to laugh at the Rantic disasters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think you may be bang on there. The chap has said "GS is either really stupid or is a Liar" !I think they may fear that remark puts them on dodgy ground ? Total nonsense if thats the case ! The worst that could happen in reality is that someone could complain to the Hootsman and the newspaper would have to delete the comment as a result, possibly also hand over any information that they have on the source of the comment in the unlikely event that it went that far. The E-commerce Directive makes it clear that web hosts have no obligation to monitor user-generated content on their sites, and the fact that they do so can actually act against them as it can be shown in court that they thus tacitly support all comments that they allow to be published. The Hootsman in this case are simply acting like cowards. By all means, remove comments that contain lewd language or comments of an outwardly libellious nature, but to remove comments like the one in the previous post smacks of suppression of the freedom of speech. The newspaper should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H J Simpson Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think you may be bang on there. The chap has said "GS is either really stupid or is a Liar" !I think they may fear that remark puts them on dodgy ground ? Total nonsense if thats the case ! I think for them to be on dogy ground Smith would have to prove that he wasn't really stupid or a liar...........................that I'd like to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think for them to be on dogy ground Smith would have to prove that he wasn't really stupid or a liar...........................that I'd like to see Actually, the defamation laws are the other way around. If Smith were to complain, the paper would have to show that what was printed was true or at least fair comment. It is defamatory to state that someone is either stupid or a liar, so the onus must be on the person making the statement to justify his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Mate of mine sent that Youtube link to high heid yins at the 'brox ("ahm gonnae get yae ...") and they're not happy. Arf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Hootsman in this case are simply acting like cowards. By all means, remove comments that contain lewd language or comments of an outwardly libellious nature, but to remove comments like the one in the previous post smacks of suppression of the freedom of speech. The newspaper should be ashamed. Nothing surprising here rj. Just ask the Scottish Nationalist minded web readers who regularly see their contributions to an argument "disappear". Yes, this disgrace of a so-called Scottish newspaper should be ashamed - it wouldn't recognise free-speech and fairness if they sat on its face and wiggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Nothing surprising here rj. Just ask the Scottish Nationalist minded web readers who regularly see their contributions to an argument "disappear". Yes, this disgrace of a so-called Scottish newspaper should be ashamed - it wouldn't recognise free-speech and fairness if they sat on its face and wiggled. SNP posters tend to have their comments removed because they tend not to be able to contribute without causing offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 SNP posters tend to have their comments removed because they tend not to be able to contribute without causing offence. That's just a ridiculous comment; that said this is a football thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingus Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Apart from it being strange all the replies are deleted, does no-one think it's ridiculous Smith made his comments in the first place, especially as he says there's a special committee set up to deal with things like that. He should just have said something along the lines of "Mr Romanov's comments have been noted" and then shut up. He's an ignorant wee ****e, he really is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think you may be bang on there. The chap has said "GS is either really stupid or is a Liar" !I think they may fear that remark puts them on dodgy ground ? Total nonsense if thats the case ! Actually it's probably the bit about people being in cahoots, i.e. alleging a conspiracy that's on dodgy ground. To say that Smith really should understand what Romanov is getting at is patently fair comment, though disingenuous would probably be a better term as opposed to Lying or Stupid (he is lying by pretending to be stupid) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman does not actually monitor and censor comments themselves. This tedious and arduous process is outsourced to another company who manage such facilities for websites like the Scotsman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman does not actually monitor and censor comments themselves. This tedious and arduous process is outsourced to another company who manage such facilities for websites like the Scotsman. You sure about that ? I personally know for a fact that the editor monitors the comments himself regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 yeah, i know that for a fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do you know where hell is Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think we need someone to be taken to court over comments made about smith and co as we really need questions answered as to how an organisation in a democratic country can be beyond reproach. You cannot criticise these morons or thier lackeys as your deemed to be bringing the game into disrepute, that has to be the biggest cop out known to man. If all was well and the system was fair and imparcial then i see no reason for the sfa to be so intolerant of criticism. Why is it that they have a system in place where a ref can decide if he made a mistake or not? why also is the man then held up as being honest for owning up when tv pictures have shown it was so obvious only stevie wonder would have missed it. We should be looking at taking the SFA to the court of human rights as my human rights are being affected by this cartel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spennyboy Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman article on GS comments about VR had the following well argued response which has now mysteriously disappeared. http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Smith-at-a-loss-to.4365573.jp who wrote that piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 who wrote that piece? Has some of the hallmarks of a Chief Grouser piece (Chief Grouser was the lead journo for the long deceased London Hearts zine and occasional (now retired) writer of odd web articles on the Lndon hearts pages. Grouser was the 'B Travern' of Hearts writers (B Travern was the author of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre and there is still much specualtion as to his origins and identity) , his name never revealed even after he departed from the printed/ web page Perhaps this marks a return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevmacd Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The Scotsman does not actually monitor and censor comments themselves. This tedious and arduous process is outsourced to another company who manage such facilities for websites like the Scotsman. The SFA perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 The SFA perhaps? I believe David Murray owns a few call centre type places.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b9c07c37d39f6684a8502525d4cf89d4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.