Power Corrupts (the SPFL)

Whatever happens here, and whether Rangers were right or wrong, there exists the unfortunate truth that many SPFL teams simply won’t back anything from Rangers. A solid chunk of rival clubs fan-base has been conditioned to dislike Rangers, fair enough, and that is a strong force for any club board to resist. This means that all other things being equal then the easy default is to fall in with the herd, as per routine, and stand against Rangers.

Unfortunately for us, the opposite of backing us is to simply lump in with celtic. They hold the reigns to many of the horses and that means they get to decide which direction those horses take and when. Others might not like that, but they seldom speak up. When they do it’s typically a lone voice and it gets shut down and quietly swept away, it’s not worth the hassle.

In a way, many clubs or supports may feel that most of the issues don’t really affect their clubs, certainly not the day to day running of their club. They don’t see the big picture or look far into the future. TV deals, sponsorship, league structure, they probably don’t feel they can get involved and won’t have much input anyways, so just leave it to others to deal with. Whether the SPFL is competent, or as corrupt as it currently appears, then it doesn’t necessarily have any bearing on those clubs or their supports. In many cases they even get passed a few crumbs to look the other way – so are happy with the status quo.

Many aspects of Rangers car crash in 2011 didn’t ring true. I could put theories to what happened and why, but I will never really know. Similar to the questionable SPFL vote. I was recently reading about corruption of the Mexican government and security forces by drug cartels and many similarities appeared. There’s always a reason to corrupt and that is clearly to derive benefits from that corruption. Scottish football has relatively closed and well-defined market, once that has been maximised then advantages will naturally be sought elsewhere. That obviously applies to anything connected with the game. Media. Governing bodies. Referees. Government. Advantages can be eked out of all of these, if they can be controlled.

One point that resonated was the turning point when one powerful cartel started using its influence and control of the governments police and forces to target its competitors. It’s an escalation in power and the abuse and misuse of that power. Of course, from the outside it’s almost a perfect crime and it can all be explained away – after all, we have the police working against traffickers and bad guys, so it’s all ok right? That’s not quite true when you factor in who has been pulling the strings and that it’s the result of been some heavy-duty corruption.

This all seems a bit extreme and a bit far removed from Scottish football, but it’s the same mechanisms and drivers. It’s humans and politics and greed and power. The latest SPFL vote appears to be a case of corrupt individuals over-reaching and their actions breaking the surface of fit and proper administration. This is why it is important. Anybody corrupting a neutral governing body needs weeding out. Corrupted actions then throw shade over anything that individual(s) have been involved in. When did it start? Were they already in place when they went off track? Or were they brought in specifically to look after the interests of one certain club?

And it goes on from that. What else could’ve been corrupted? Could certain referees have been fast-tracked because they would bend with the wind, would he throw in a homer when required? Is it possible that the Compliance Officer was position created with the remit of looking after the interests of the controlling entity and being directed against the competition?

I have seen signs of uneven treatment in many places since 2011 but few of greater direct influence than the referees in recent seasons. Rangers play up hill, the numbers prove it. Celtic play downhill, again, the numbers prove it. But with this the other clubs are not necessarily unhappy as they get more free hits against Rangers. Breath-taking displays of leniency sit in contrast to hair-trigger cards for our players, therefore a better chance of points. This status quo suits them so why make an issue out of it. From the outside it’s just Rangers fans complaining about referees and it’s all probably a good laugh for rival fans.

In 2012, the carrots placed before rival clubs were obvious, if transparently short term. Rangers punted out to the long grass made the it an automatic 1 place jump up the table for most clubs. Clubs are that small-minded. The cups would be more open, that one’s true up to a point. If laughing at Rangers expense wasn’t enough then to further sweeten the deal the SPL reallocated some of the 2nd place prize money. This would’ve equated to £50,000 extra per club. I believe celtic even played to benevolent card with a slight reduction in first prize money – gift to all other clubs. Of course, small potatoes compared to the real prize, the £30m in unchallenged Champions Leagues bounty.

There is a point here that the media don’t mention. The total money in the game has went down. TV deals shrank. Sponsorship disappeared. Gates reduced. After 2012, most SPFL clubs had less money. Scottish football was a poorer place. The lower leagues benefited, of course, when Rangers came to town; TV interest, exposure, novelty, etc. You’d think the rival club Chairmen would’ve noticed this and perhaps questioned their unthinking allegiances?

So back the SPFL. We now have Neil Doncaster on £400k per year. We have MacLennan, McCluskey and Mackenzie all batting for celtic. We’ve had Vincent Lunny, Anthony McGlennan and Clare White all taking money out of the game – what did any of them improve, where’s the value? (there’s then the demographical question in all of those appointments). Elsewhere, we have people like Mike Mulraney having a say in the national game.

The SPFLs recent wobble is just an indication that the SPFL has been ran for celtic for a long time. And for Doncaster’s £400k we are regularly rewarded with competitions without sponsors. We have paltry TV deals, despite Rangers being back and the appearance of box office like Gerrard and even Rodgers. No talk of improvement or brainstorming or reconstruction during the intervening years. Only now in a crisis to cover up the celtic title grab.

That’s why they are there. To look after celtics interests. And it IS costing the other clubs money. Sadly, until the other clubs realise that, and care about that, then it’ll just be more of the same.

This may seem like a small and petty battle but if it goes unchecked then there will be other issues manipulated and spirited away in the future. That may in the form of  frivolous fines to Rangers, it may be ignoring some seriously flawed refereeing performances, overlooking indiscretions when self-interest suits. If you ask me, then the current crop of undesirables are currently tasked with holding back the tide on far more important and serious issues, namely due process on the celtics historic child abuse scandal. If these guys are compromised then there is no way they can be trusted or impartial on something as serious as that, something that will damage their puppet master. After all, what’s the point of corruption if you can’t extract benefit from it?

Musical Chairs and Sporting Integrity

I’ve heard Scottish football described as three seats around a table. The seats being occupied by Rangers, celtic and the third by the rest of the clubs combined. This is a quirk of how football and society and success have panned out over the century but it’s not really a great model to base the nations communal pursuits on.

The EPL has a better model. It has considerably more stakeholders and no one agenda is able to over play its hand and more importantly not able to direct or control things for its own ends. A majority carries because the majority benefits. The same goes for the English press, the big teams have their own powerful PR but if one starts blowing smoke or attacking a rival, there is enough balance to ensure it gets called out and stopped before it gains traction. Before it gets unhealthy and toxic.

Scottish football is probably at a worse place than the three-seat model and two seats would be more accurate these days. David Murray, Rangers most reckless and irresponsible custodian by some distance, left his inherited chair unguarded (whilst most-likely boasting about private jets) and the psychopathic politicians in charge at celtic (who rushed in to replace the club’s previous paedophile dynasty) took no hesitation in seizing the opportunity and kicking that third chair away.

This is one of Murray’s biggest mistakes. The failure to recognise legacy and contingency. The importance of protecting what you have for now AND for the future. Empires rise and fall, and future generations often lose understanding of what made that Empire great. That essence has to be protected and nurtured and propagated. Murray did none of that. Also inexcusable is that time has shown that many Rangers guardians across the wider landscape of Scotland had failed that test too. Perhaps the spirit of that essence was lost. Perhaps ego was placed before Institution, which if understandable in the short term is not good enough for Rangers.

So with the seat at the table gone and the club fighting for survival Rangers have been sitting on the floor of Scottish football for a long time. Only recently have we managed to get one cheek on that second chair with the rest of the clubs.

With three chairs we at least had a voice and a seat. Now that second vote can be extinguished very easily. Divide and conquer. Rangers aren’t especially liked outside Rangers and by nature we don’t have any natural allies. In fact, this is not just Rangers, Scotland is historically just groups of people squabbling and stabbing each other in the back – so it’s the easiest game in the world to turn others against each other, and thus ensure there is no co-operation. If you control the media then you control the narrative. And this leaves the table free for celtic to do what they choose.

The narrative around the coronavirus has proven what we already know. Firstly, celtic will put winning at football before anything. It makes you wonder how far they would actually go but then you remember that we already know this. Secondly, no other league or press or governing bodies across Europe is actively pushing one definitive solution as hard and fast as here in Scotland. No doubt other leagues will have grown up discussions and come to compromises or decisions based on common sense and compromise.

We know that won’t happen in Scotland. The influence of one club is too much, too prevalent, and most importantly too unprofessional and blinkered. Time has shown that celtic-people in professional places from city councils to HMRC offices to tabloids to broadsheets to Holyrood to inequality charities cannot act professionally with respect to football, celtic and, in particular, Rangers. It’s a genuinely worrying trend in Scottish society – decency waylaid for tribalism. It is argued that it points to Rangers not being universally loved (who is) but in truth it’s more damning of the detractors. It shows that they cannot contain their hatred. The places I listed above all have multiple certified acts of professional bigotry. Now people don’t like celtic but there’s no equivalent or opposite behaviour directed at them so brazenly.  Because it doesn’t exist. The other players play by the rules. If the detractors stopped to think they’d realise that they’re no better than the thing they rage at and are actually worse. For them, the expression of discrimination and bigotry aren’t the problem, only who benefits from it.

So at what stage do we have to question loyalties and placements within Scottish football? How many acts of faith from how many arbitrary places of influence are acceptable before conflict of interest can be questioned? This was already a trend years ago. The trend is worse now. As has been reported from various sources and various chairmen, celtic exert too much power in Scottish football – so what then is the logical conclusion from that statement?

If celtic are filling Hampden, footballing positions and press positions with “their” people then what else can we expect except comments and actions that benefit celtic? Rangers has already publicly expressed conflict of interest concerns over SPFL chairmen Murdoch MacLennan. And Rangers usually keep their powder dry (their silence dignified) on individuals – so how dodgy must this placement be for them to break water? Needless to say, the media haven’t bothered to follow up and the guy is still in place.

As far as I’m concerned the SFA and SPFL are currently corrupted organisations and the performance of the referees at certain times throughout recent seasons is veering into match fixing territory. If i were Rangers and the other clubs I’d certainly be asking a third party to keep an independent eye on the whole officiating structure and its implementation. I’d happily extend that to many other areas of governance that have questionable constitution or performance.

It may yet be that celtic are awarded the 2019/2020 title. It may be that I even accept that but only if it mirrors decisions universally applied across the world of football. Self-praise is no praise and celtic -people jumping in to gift-wrap celtic the title before everyone has had fair say doesn’t surprise me – that is why they are in those positions. I can see this, it’s not for me to realise. Or even for Rangers fans. It’s for the rest of Scottish football to look at and question. Then do something about. The status quo is toxic and broken. Perhaps the entire world of football doing one thing and the celtic-led SPFL doing the opposite will open eyes to that.

A Referendum State of Mind

I can’t help but feel that these referendums and the attached tribal identity politics are no more than weakened down version of moving between two very similar jobs. Both promise so much but ultimately offer very little in terms of change. Underneath both it is all about state of mind, the need for change for changes sake, whilst all the other the benefits are, well, imagined.

Not that perception and change don’t count, of course – to the individual it can be all that matters at that time. The placebo effect is real, there’s a swell of empowerment and confidence when you make that switch. But its not a necessary change, no matter how loud you shout, it’s a choice.

Again, it’s a state of mind. People claiming they’ll only be happy in an independent Scotland, or whatever, could easily be happy today, if they were honest, but they choose not to be. They choose to assume and focus on one tiny aspect of identity and define their life through it.

They’re letting emotions run the show. Tribal, identity politics has turned elections into a football match, where the result is the important and driving factor. Not reality. And it’s not a football match (that’s what football is for in society). And football is not going to feed your family (unless you’re a footballer). 

In a picture of a nation, be it 5 million or 60 million (unless you are a wealthy or very gifted or talented person) then you are insignificant. Don’t be upset by this, in the world and the universe we are all are insignificant, it’s simply something to make peace with. So you have a vote, good for you. The elected officials won’t be phoning your house and asking for your opinion. Your wants and desires may align with whatever leaders or party (again a state of mind, a question of choice and acceptance) but you will still have to work and will still have to pay taxes. They’ll have their £100k p/a seat in Holyrood and you won’t. In the real world, your opportunities won’t dramatically increase. There won’t be a gold rush to Dundee, and even if there was you wouldn’t really want to work in mining anyway. Globalisation will decide where and how the majority work, be it in an independent Scotland, a Scotland in union with Westminster and/or Brussels.

The grass appears greener, but it often isn’t and if you’re lucky it’ll be the same shade of green. Every major change in constitution or upset in the status quo could be viewed as a disaster for some –  as plenty are content with how things are ticking along. People are generally adverse to too much change, this is hardly a surprise or something to berate them about. Similarly, opportunity could be argued from any situation. Brexit could open up a whole world of possibilities. It’s a state of mind to realise that, accept it and get behind it. If Scexit happened then the same mind set would have to be applied to that situation.

Let me throw another analogy into the mix. The football team dressing room. You want (need) a range of characters in there. You want different methods, opinions and points of view. You need different strengths, and everyone will have weaknesses to work at improving (hopefully not all the same one). But the success of that team comes with one uniting caveat – that everyone wears the same shirt.

In the real world you can argue about what the shirt represents. For me, it’s the acceptance of the current situation and making the most of that. A state of mind. Hard work being its own reward. An acceptance that perhaps adopting contrary politics at every staging post won’t actually help things and may actually be making things worse for everybody, including yourself.

And if you feel that your life requires that kind of upheaval that is only sated by incessant, undemocratic politicking then maybe you should be looking at other aspects of your own life and make some changes there. Take up or try something new. Gift up the bad habits – ditch the alcohol or junk food. Work to live. The biggest and best thing I’ve done in recent was to take up cycling again. A couple of hours, a couple of times a week, fresh air, open roads. It helps to blast away the stress. You could add the feelings of freedom, health, fitness, strength, competition, community and empowerment as other benefits. All helping my state of mind and add perspective to my world without trying to change the geo-political map.

This text may come across as dismissive or negative. I’m not stating that things cannot and should never change (or more importantly improve). And it doesn’t mean folk shouldn’t take an interest in politics, they absolutely should, especially if you feel your stability and well-being are being negatively affected. There’s got to be a realisation that the radicals grab the headlines, hopes and imagination but more often than not there is very little substance behind it. It’s got us to a place full of nasty, divisive politics. We have truly ended up with some shallow, vacant and selfish politicians, perhaps this is no better than we collectively deserve? It’s understandable but all too easy to be seduced by the big sell instead of the simply backing good people and fair, decent policies and values. Perhaps we would be better supporting these when we see it and being the best we can in our own lives instead of chasing impossible daydreams.

To finish with, a simple parable on why I will never take identity politics (including religion, especially religion) too seriously. Say one morning that a committed activist bumps their head and loses their memory. They are then tended by friendly and articulate nurses who happen to hold the opposing political view. By the evening that activist would be trumpeting the opposite cause. That’s how capricious and arbitrary it all is.

Somethings just aren’t FARE

You’ll know what happened with FARE by now. Club1872 cover it well here. In short, a celtic supporter (of the more virulent variety) who is FAREs acting representative in Scotland, forgot to log out of his celtic-minded account and retweeted some anti-Rangers bile on the official FARE twitter account. FARE have apologised and claimed this was an accident.

As folk have pointed out online this wasn’t an accident, it couldn’t be n accident. Retweeting on a phone takes 2 steps and that would be a very unusual and unlikely. And then follow the uncomfortable truth – that the person involved must follow that person or that type of account on twitter and then have engaged with that particular tweet. Accepting that the retweet wasn’t a mistake then the explanation is that he shared the tweet to the followers of his celtic-minded account, and presumably shared the views in the tweet and the purpose of the video – which was to excuse Scott Browns sectarian singing by applying 30 year old dollop of whataboutery.

This on its own tells us all we need to know about FAREs rep. Online has provided more flavour and it suggests that his political ideals are diametrically opposed to the existence of Rangers football club. This explains why he is so keen to play a part in a system to punish the club and support. Not an unusual impulse for celtic fans, we will see.

It of course leads to many more questions. How and why has FARE allowed this blatant and obvious example of prejudice and persecution to go unchecked? What influence has this individual had? Surely a review of his work at FARE is a minimum?

And of greater significance to Rangers, surely a review of UEFAs own rules and guidelines and how they came about is justified? Have FARE or this type of celtic-minded zealot (s) been  present since the beginning? Rangers fans, and the club itself, have long suspected mischief and injustice in how the cards have fallen on this subject. Is it any surprised that a politically comprised celtic fan has no problem, and no desire to see celtic potentially punished, with chants about huns (the equivalent of fenian) or orange bastards (an unarguably sectarian phrase) or the IRA. Where as Rangers go-to offensive phrase (fenian) is elevated to taboo level.

Also worth noting that this individual places himself within the support to carry out his FARE work. Do we know what he’s hearing and reporting? Do we know he’s not instigating chants or responses?

Of course, Rangers fans are only too familiar with this kind of behaviour and consequences. From the top of my head serious questions need asked about the systems and motives of the people involved in:

– The HMRC tweets on Rangers affairs a few weeks ago.

– The decisions involving the HMRC and Rangers going back 12 years.

– The BBCs ongoing boycott on Ibrox and Rangers (now approaching 4 years – 4 years for a national broadcaster to ignore a major professional football club because of some celtic supporters in its operation decided that it would be appropriate).

– Chris McLaughlin himself. The “source” of the boycott. A celtic fan who has proven he can not deal with Rangers stories in a fair, balanced or professional manner. He’s not exactly alone across Scotland’s media.

– The celtic supporting editors at the BBC who seem to consider it their job to edit the highlights to show and magnify any disputable incident for Rangers and quietly hide any injustice against. Whilst, and equally importantly, applying the opposite for celtic. Anyone who watched live football in Scotland in 2018/2019 would’ve been aware of this and much of their handy work ended up with the compliance officer. The practise was dubbed Trial by Sportscene.

– Celtic supporting Clare Whyte is the SFAs compliance officer and the latest in a line of celtic supporters to occupy this role. As above, 2018/2019 was a season of outstanding bias. The statistics prove this – with Rangers brought up for charges at every opportunity and others overlooked. Personally, I feel this had a tangible influence in the title race and it definitely put stress on the Rangers first team. In 2019/2020 she has went to ground. I guess this level of corruption and cheating is simply unsustainable.

– On the back of the FARE led punishments of Rangers there has been calls for strict liability to be applied to Scottish clubs. The end game of this presumably fines, stadium closures and points reductions for Rangers. The main protagonists are unsurprisingly celtic supporting MSPs and similar minded media mouth pieces.

It shouldn’t pass you by that much of this clamour for punishment (arguably excessive and disproportionate punishment) is built upon the definition on one word. A definition that doesn’t accurately reflect the usage or the intent of the football crowd using it. Hindsight and this slip up by FARE goes some way to explaining why some have tried so hard to convince the world what they need the word to mean.

Scott Brown – A Symptom of Endemic Sectarian Attitudes

So Scott Brown has been singing sectarian songs? He’s not alone, as every week thousands of others will too. That’s not the point though.

If we cared to admit it then Scottish society has had the same problem for centuries, with different tribal streams cutting their way down the lowland plains. It’s always the same battles. Always from the same place. There are things that could be done to break down barriers. The shedding of old prejudice and mistrust would be essential, not easy but not impossible, by redirecting or filling the physical and cultural channels that run through society. And there are plenty if you cared to look for them. The natural aim in the long term is the integration of both streams, which calls for a bit of give and take all round

We could keep the streams separate, of course. That is possible. Rangers and Celtic aren’t going to merge so a truce has to be agreed. Adherence to this truce gradually grows respect. Further work and progress can then be built upon these foundations. However, one of Scotland’s problems is that divides are bigger than and not limited to just two football teams; and this is where the spinning plates of any truce begin to multiply.

Any truce, any seize-fire relies on trust, with clear rules and both sides abiding. The Scottish medias prevailing attitudes and strategy to sectarian singing has failed miserably. We know this with hindsight, for it was never intended to solve any problems. Some happy to stir up news and stories, some happy to just go along with it and some with more targeted and cynical interests. Although dressed up as an issue of social conscience it has been far from that for many. It was often solely a stick to beat Rangers with – as simple as that. It has been a ruse built around an apparently noble cause and seasoned with enough truth to beat away detractors for as long as possible.

Singing at football. A vital exercise and component in social and cultural bonding. Part celebration, part spectacle and part intimidation. We have seen the quintessential example of this turned into a hate crime. Where as there’s no doubt over the occasionally anti-social and deliberately offensive nature of the Billy Boys, it existed in a hail of crossfire from one side to the other. That is the context and the environment. The cultural and human shortcomings in offensive expressions exist in both sides, and other supports. Any solution, if we’re deciding that one is required, is about attitudes and bringing the whole pot down off the boil. It’s about identifying what’s wrong, negative or offensive and deciding if it’s really necessary.

Now many would say that twisting football slang into political and cultural point scoring isn’t adhering to any truce. Drafting in experts, politicians or religious figures and spokesman to bolster that chosen stance isn’t adherence to a truce. It’s a witch-hunt. Especially as those figures are loath to make concessions on their own side’s behaviour. This building walls higher, dragging in other identities as reinforcement and then lobby rocks across the divides. It’s about labelling and defining others. Growing distances. Not exactly conducive to building respect and trust.

It did have a purpose of course and it hoped to gain on many fronts. Damage to reputation being the most obvious. The column inches and news bulletins occupied by the Billy Boys has been frightening. Designed to blacken one side, whilst ignoring the other side attempts to whitewash them in the contrast. The work and effort to define fenian as meaning catholic in a football setting was quite something, especially as Rangers would have many catholic players on the pitch (many of whom were idolised and free to express their religion) and when simpler and more accurate definitions clearly existed i.e. celtic. But then mundane football or “political” definitions wouldn’t have derived the same leverage or been remotely useful. And having been able to contort and force the word into its minority, out of context placing then further points could be scored.

They convinced to world of a meaning of their choice and having it signed off in the rule books and public consciousness as the greater evil has caused many problems for Rangers. Financially the club as been fined, on numerous occasions. It has had to spent considerable time and effort in fighting fires and explaining itself. The politicking and lobbying of UEFA and FARE has caused us some real concerns in recent years. A partial ground closure, the threat of escalating sanctions is a source of worry. This is then compounded by further financial and reputational damage, especially with UEFA classing, or being convinced to class, that particular expression of sectarianism as a subset of racism. An added bonus for the architects and bricklayers of the whole enterprise – and with these results you can see why they have worked so hard to make this an issue.

As I said above, there’s a kernel of truth is every good lie. It’s not that offensive singing can always be defended or condoned. Besides, the rule-book and punishments of today are real and must be obeyed. It’s that equally offensive and sectarian words and actions haven’t been addressed and elevated and outlawed, for the very reasons listed above. This is hypocrisy and a two-tier system. The mitigations readily applied in defence of hun and other chants could have equally been applied to fenian, but they aren’t and that is damning of those pretending otherwise. Pretending that they’re doing society a favour whilst making excuses for the inexcusable. Pretending that one side is worse. One set of humans worse than another. That one side is incapable of that behaviour and that those failings don’t apply to them – when they clearly do and clearly always have. That kind of view is as sectarian in itself as it is insulting.

So we now see video footage of Scott Brown singing fuck the huns in public. This is certainly not unusual behaviour in Scotland. Hun is a sectarian word and is being sung with sectarian intent. This is the Celtic captain using sectarian language (which UEFA and FARE might well classify as racist). Hurling the proverbial rocks from behind the dividing wall. And with regular singing from the support, alongside orange bastard chants, this certainly appears to be an endemic problem –  “a vermin rump” to paraphrase the words used by one prominent journalistic commentator. Part of the problem is that press have hidden and defended it from this source for so long that they genuinely appear to believe that it isn’t sectarian. How can you solve a problem if you won’t admit that you have a problem?

No one is really offended – but it is isn’t about that. That’s not what the game has been about. This is now about equal treatment and due process. We will wait and see if those with a vested interest, those driving the campaigns and headlines and rule-books, are in it for the right reasons. Or if they’ll disrespect Scotland’s sectarian tensions in favour of continued point-scoring?

100 Inconvenient Voices

The question put to you is simple – do you support Helene and Michelle Gray (and the many like them) in their quest for answers and justice?

To add more context to that, they are very clearly having to struggle against what appears to be an inescapable and insurmountable tide, one of deliberate and orchestrated obstruction. As it has always been.

Answers and justice on the historical instances of child-sexual abuse in Scottish football would be best served by a public enquiry. This is how the cards have fallen and is where we as a nation currently finds itself. We have seen targeted justice meted out by the legal system, which has tried and convicted a number of predators operating under-the-banner, under-the-watch and on-the-grounds of Celtic FC. But these court cases have thrown up even more questions.

There is a suggestion that there could be more cases put through the court system. A total of 5 predators prosecuted so far, but with claims made of up to fourteen. The number of victims is no less than one hundred. Many of those cases haven’t made the court rooms. Estimates of up to a total of 10,000 instances of abuse. That is staggering numbers. But it is what this all means, beyond the terrifying scale of abuse, that really emphasises calls for the public enquiry.

How was this allowed? The victims, the families, the public need to know what’s happened here. How has this environment, this sanctuary for abuse, been allowed to exist for so long? How have so many questions and complaints been blithely batted away year upon year, including the times when the abuse would’ve been at it’s most frequent? To eventually be worn down to an uneasy, unfulfilled silence.

The answer appears to be that justice has and is being obstructed – obviously by those directly involved, but then also by those that knew and were made aware, those with a vested or professional interest. Somewhere along the line a corporate decision was made to keep a lid on the reputation-damaging truth. Here we must ask questions of the Celtic board and it’s chosen course of actions. We must surely look at the inaction of the SFA – a governing body that has failed to govern. Circumstance would suggest a cross-over in personnel over critical dates and periods. Again, these are only questions, but it is what everybody is thinking and asking. That is has been covered up is not in doubt but by how much and by whom? How much of that silence has been forced and how much gave voluntarily?

The answer to my opening question is either Yes or No.

Yes, I support the Gray family is fairly straight-forward and self explanatory. The plight of a family fighting for truth and justice over the hurt and damage of a Son or Brother is an easy one to empathise with. More so, when the pleas for help are coldly ignored in public view. And even more so still, when the smoke of injustice and corruption hangs in the air like a suffocating fog. There is enough information in the public domain and there are enough victims seeking justice to suggest that it is far from served.

If your answer is No, I do not support the Gray family then I can only see two conclusions. It may be that you genuinely believe that justice has been carried through – that enough truth has been uncovered. That rumours and suggestion are just that and that the victims and families should be content with the situation as it stands. If that is the case, then your idea of justice differs from the majority and I believe we’d have a chaotic and dysfunctional society if everybody and every case was satisfied with such a pitiful level of scrutiny and thoroughness.

The other conclusion is that you actively do not want to honour the wishes of a large majority of the victims – which exceeds 100 individuals for the Celtic FC related cases alone. That you neither want nor back a full public enquiry into the incidents at Celtic, and Hibs, and Rangers and God knows how many more clubs. It is a curious position to hold and surely one that cannot be on common decency. Therefore, it has to derive from somewhere else, perhaps some misplaced tribal defence of the indefensible or a tribal fear that your chosen football club will be damaged during the journey to justice and closure; perhaps grounded in an underlying thought and admission to yourself that it should be damaged. A desire to see your club benefit by swerving any head-on collision on this scandal. A desire that the club share as they work tirelessly, with no lack of effort and input, to that end.

Make no mistake, the press can make or break any victims calls for justice. They hold tremendous power and influence over society. We have seen this influence and recent history has proven it over and over. Rumours were rife across the country about Saville, yet nothing happened for decades and even then, it only exploded in the press once he had died – in short, he was protected. God only knows what the chatter must have been like in the tea rooms and public houses around Rotherham. The people responsible for justice chose to look the other way. The press (nationally at least) chose (or were told) not to pick it up. Only when the scale of depravity and damage became impossible to ignore were the press then allowed to report. By that stage the public outrage was flint and tinder and finally the heat under the seats of the holders of justice was allowed to rise. Justice followed, if long overdue. As did the public enquiry – into the crimes, the factors and facets, the sub-culture that begat it and the framework that allowed it the continue – the framework that failed so many.

And so it is in Scotland. We have the guardians of justices sitting on their hands with their chairs barely lukewarm. Unwilling to grant the victims and the public their full and open enquiry. Our current Justice Secretary is happy to signal on twitter about the Epstein case yet seemingly ignorant to the scandal festering right under his own nose. We can draw our own conclusions about his motives.

And our beloved press. In the past 12 months some shafts of light have begun to break-through. Some courageous journalism on the back of immeasurably brave work from the victims and their families. But it’s all been too little, it’s been so limited and often it has failed to carry the momentum and natural expansion of events. Amongst this there have been whispered calls for public enquiries but more in the grudging shape of there probably should be and not there absolutely must be! – it’s a telling difference. Make no mistakes the press is holding back or being held back.

It grates my very soul to see the self-proclaimed great and good of Scottish football sit this one out. Some individuals who will be aware of a hell of a lot more than most; how it could happen, how many looked the other way and who’s been party to any damage limitation strategy??? People are in possession of these answers. Individuals who are never short of a word or two, or of an opinion when it suits them. It’s these clear injustices and the choice of so many to answer “No” to the victim’s plea that really irritates. It’s simply wrong. This is the press siding with the apparatus and enablers of abuse, actively obstructing justice.

The victims require a bare minimum of the press representing their story until they achieve some of their wishes and gain some modicum of contentment. The fair coverage of this plight would grow public empathy and respect. It would undoubtedly open many more eyes to the ongoing injustice. The oxygen of coverage and public support is essential to light a fire under the seat of justice. Like it was with Rotherham. With Saville and co. With Hillsborough. People that have had their lives ruined at least deserve that. And not the secretive or politically-designed half measures we see being applied to this scandal. Not the patchy coverage the Scottish press provides, where major events and disclosures are missed with astounding regularity. Where people who have spent a large amount of their career investigating this very subject suddenly lose their voice. The only side that this behaviour benefits is the one with something to hide. The truth suffers.

Full disclosure. I’m a Rangers fan and my club appears to have questions to answer. It looks like predators were employed at my club too at some point. Those victims have the same right to answers and justice and the revelations of this abuse only strengthens the case for a full public enquiry across Scottish football. The air needs cleared and the victims need closure. I have just watched my club get kicked out of the top league for 4 whole years in a furore on trivial tax debts. I fear no sanction so long as justice is done. And yet many who put Rangers down and laughed as punishment was dished out for admin issues are absolutely petrified of a similar justice and punishment befalling their club. A fear that drives them to deny justice to genuine victims. I have no doubt about that.

One last thing. The adversary of the victims in this is a multi-million-pound business. It has the backing of many faithful servants. It has navigated and weathered this storm for decades and would happily sit tight for as long as it takes. It has the means to maintain the status quo, to carefully usher the distraction back into the long grass. For the victims, it has taken tremendous courage and bravery to step-up, but that courage has a limit and any rich, cynical business knows this too well. The attritional effect of having your voice repeatedly dismissed and disrespected is undeniable and must be soul destroying. What are sporadic stories or headlines to us, are the fight of lifetime to these brave people. We have a duty to keep this alive until the victims are satisfied, and not before. We must all (everybody in football and beyond) keeping asking our press and our MPs/MSPs what side they are on until the Gray’s get their fair hearing.

How my bike was stolen and what it taught me

Monday morning and ready to leave for work. A little bit later than usual so I could walk my daughter to school. Down the stairs, shoes and jackets on and open the front door. First thought. That’s my daughters bikes wheel on the ground behind the car. Second thought. I remember putting the bikes back in the shed yesterday afternoon. And the third thought is the realisation of what’s happened.

It’s an unusual feeling that moment  you realise you’ve been robbed. The mind seems to hold two images simultaneously, one with the bikes in the shed and the new one of shed emptied of prized possessions.  And it cant quite resolve both images. The gears spin and slip as they attempt to turn back time to make a different outcome. It’s all futile of course, and the realisation that it has happened begins to sink in. Then comes the frustration of the steps that are required to start clearing up the mess and getting back to normal.

For the last couple of years I’d usually kept my good bike in the house. Several years before that I’d rediscovered the joys of cycling. I’d been keen and regular in my training and rides and had decided to treat myself to an upgrade. The range and quality of bikes on offer these days is fantastic but that can come at a cost. And with that cost comes value to others; others with a looser definition of possession and ownership.

Over the summer the family house had lapsed into a bad habit of leaving the front door unlocked and ajar when the kids were in the garden. Somebody was always in the house so it’s not a problem. Not quite. I’d a habit of parking my bike up behind the front door. Hidden from site, even from anyone visiting the front step.

One day my wife had mentioned that a Hermes delivery driver (not one of the usual ones) had passed comment on the bike. Apparently, he had stepped in the house and shouted up the stairs instead of ringing the bell. This seemed unusual as most people respect the threshold of a stranger’s house. Most, not all.

Since it was the still the summer holidays it was very likely that the door would be left open again at some point. We had recently got ourselves a new shed at the side of the house (where my wife had hoped I would keep all of my bikes). So, to provide the bike with some level of relative protection in the short term it was moved it to the shed.

A few days later the same driver returned and this time he had asked where the bike was or if I was out for a ride?

A few days later and said bike. Along with a second bike. Some bike parts and some tools had been taken at some point during the night. My thoughts are that it was two people. One in the shed with a torch and one outside keeping watch as they had a quick rummage (long enough to go through tool boxes and containers), throw some stuff in a back pack and make a sharp exit.

Thinking back on the whole scene I had made it way too easy for the thieves. The lock on the shed was in good condition but was barely more than a device for keeping the door closed. After the event the lock was left in the closed position on the opened door, with no damage or use of force visible. It was either picked or they had a key. I had intended to add a second better lock. Should’ve, could’ve, didn’t. The outside light used to be a motion sensitive security light, but the sensor stopped working a long time ago. Either of these could’ve been ample deterrent.

A common mistake, I would learn, is leaving keys hanging up around the front door. This is something entrepreneurs will look for first. An easy opportunity. Something like this could be the difference between a scheme being a real possibility and the person just moving over to the next thing.

It is possible that the Hermes driver had entered the house with a mind to having a look around. It’s more common than you’d think and straight-out brazen no doubt works for many looking for an easy score. Any valuables, any keys left unguarded? The driver would’ve found both as the shed keys are within easy reach – (there wasn’t anything of particular value kept in there yet)- and my bike.

Of course, it may not have been that driver either personally or his contacts. It could’ve been others that I’m not even aware of. It could’ve been the guys that make the sheds – they’d have the keys and locations for hundreds of garden sheds. It could have been the blind opportunity of some creep that can pick a lock. For all I know they’ve been round checking the shed every month until they’d found something of value. I don’t mind naming Hermes as the driver’s behaviour was suspicious, and even more so in hindsight. They are one of the delivery companies who doesn’t include the name of delivery driver with the receipt and records. Also, in the days following we were expected another delivery which was being sent out through Hermes. On day one it never appeared. Not on day two either. Day three had a note claiming an attempted delivery had failed, which we know to be incorrect. It didn’t look great. Indeed, if you read up on some of the costumer experiences surrounding their deliveries you could almost conclude that delivering items was an inconvenience.

I contacted the police about the theft. In my mind by that stage I had their investigation all planned out and perhaps my expectations had been raised to unrealistically high levels from reading too many detective novels. The response wasn’t immediate. It took 4 days for them to visit and interview. A discussion with a policeman in the neighbourhood reset my expectations and it seemed that unless they catch the thief in the act then an arrest is unlikely. And if the theft was planned or targeted then it would’ve likely been different people involved – so any leads or suspicions are moot. Besides by that time the bike would probably be stored somewhere well out of the way or more likely already in a different city.

But surely there are still leads to follow? The police informed me that they did ask Hermes who the driver was for those deliveries. But Hermes declined the opportunity to give them the information.

This was probably the biggest eye opener for me. Not that the police are busy or overworked. Not that my bike really isn’t that important. Not it was just a trespass and theft from a garden shed and not a residence. But how limited the powers are the police can actually yield for their day to day work. Any perception of power is vanquish with a simple no comment. This is something that law-abiding people do not realise and something that the criminally minded understand all to well. The time and resources to investigate and start to build a case (even if it appears painfully obvious or likely) for anything but the more serious crimes just isn’t worth it. It’s not that the police don’t want to see things though, it is just not viable. And even if they had been able to track the guy down, asked him questions, he’d would’ve just have to say no comment and things would grind to a terminal halt.

And as Hermes have proven, most people don’t have to tell them anything, and more often than not the energy to force them to do so just isn’t worth it – in this instance at least. And this is where I would like online retailers to be a bit more discerning and demanding of their delivery firms. These firms are being used to visit the consumers houses and property with their products and wares. It would be basic decency and a show of trust to supply a name or reference for this service. There’s no little irony that some of the components i’ll need to order to replace the stolen bike may be delivered by the very guy behind its theft.

Spiritual Negligence

I’d consider myself to be a spiritual person. I have my inner thoughts and beliefs and reflect on plenty when I can catch a moment.  However, I’m not religious. Not at all.

That is not a contradiction.

Religion is the control and order of tribalism, the excuse of claimed and shared spirituality. Without that framework the thoughts and ideas end with the individual. Religion is the mechanism that allows formulated ideologies to span individuals and span generations. It allows populations and minds to be programmed and controlled and it allows them to be controlled beyond lifetimes. The phrase for this is meme.

The phrase meme derives from its living world, biological counterpart gene. And perhaps the essence of organised religion can be best described in these terms. The meaning of life can be debated but what is inescapable is that we exist to pass on genetic material. That’s the basic and shared reason-to-be that connects all living things. Life has to continue because, rather obviously, if it doesn’t then it ends.

The best living organism is the one that exists and continues to exists. It’s as simple as that. Diversity and the continued radiation of evolution provides life the most chances possible. The beauty of the snow leopard means nothing when it fails to adapt and extinction clips that branch of life. A human society of high arts and advanced science means nothing when it comes to blinding halt through a nuclear war, disease or choking to death on a polluted planet. For life, for your DNA and your animating genetic material, your only usefulness is in continuance. Sorry folks.

This is also true of memes. Layered on top of their genetic chassis. Human society develops and builds and passes on best (and worst) practise. Religion likewise resides on these foundations. It’s not essential to anything. It’s an arbitrary quirk of memetic evolution. There is no chosen religion. And like its genetic counterparts the “best” religious is simply the one that collects numbers and the one that secures its continuance.

Example. We know the how and why that allowed certain religions to gain footholds and grow. Populism and tribalism. Fear and manipulation. Follow or die. The brutal public slaughter of those keeping their own mind or opposing beliefs is a pretty persuasive technique. Others then join the throng. Indoctrination. Repetition, forms habit. The meme takes hold. The tenets demand loyalty. The tenets demand that once you’re in then you won’t leave, that you’ll keep the meme going, growing, and pass it on to future generations. That is your use to the meme. That is how the meme continues. All completely arbitrary and not all positive, harmless or useful.

I derive from traditionally Church of Scotland roots. Many generations ago the “faith” and following and application of that faith was strong across Scotland. However, somewhere down the line that religion lost it’s hold. My parents weren’t religious and outside Christmas or Easter or funerals they certainly never pretended to believe in any of it. I’m grateful for that, although, I have to say I don’t think any of it would’ve resonated anyway. As it clearly didn’t for them.

My opinion on this is that the Church of Scotland lost sight of its purpose. Perhaps its guardians started to actually believe in the spiritual aspect and forgot what a religion actually is? What it’s reason-to-be is? It failed to adapt to a changing environment. It failed to recognise dangers – pressures, temptations, competitors. Inexcusably, it failed to reinforce its foundations. Without continuance, without contingency the religion (any religion) is nothing. In a generation a meme is extinct. Another snow leopard. Another dodo or dinosaur for archaeologists to talk about.

The current debate on religious schooling in Scotland is part of this scene. The Catholic Church is clinging desperately to its schools because it knows the importance of these in the indoctrination of the young. Which become its young. A branding of youth. Corralled into a system that will pay-back through loyalty and continuance. Assimilation in line with parents wants, which were similarly imparted and shaped by the same system.

The schooling system and the Church of Scotland’s lack of awareness on this front is telling. Scotland effectively has two branches of schools, non-denomination and Catholic. Presumably in a well-meaning and decent gesture, possibly for the good of Scotland, the Church of Scotland effectively sold out its future. Sold out its stake in the formative years of young minds. Basic marketing. Religion 101. This is an astounding lack of awareness from the guardians of a product relying on something as capricious as human attention.

Hiding in plain sight…

We all know Scotland’s history; every decent account of it covers it – even my kids’ encyclopaedia spells it out. A tug-of-war played out between two sides. Your place in that picture is an accident of birth and a political choice for adults in Scotland (depending on your views of whether there is any freedom of choice after a life-time of conditioning).

Hundreds of years with an ever-changing cast of actors as the population opts in to the conflicts and bows out through boredom, revulsion or death. But the two main teams stay the same. That’s how it has been up here and Scotland is not unique in that state of affairs. It is human nature, or the nature of human society. It is human history, everywhere, and in Scotland, like elsewhere, it cannot be written off, under-played or ignored.

History repeats. Feuds don’t die away, certainly not if they’re not allowed to. While it can be argued that the tussle has drifted into welcome peace and moderate civility it hasn’t gone away. It has been there all along bubbling away under the surface. We have too many institutions build around it to ensure that is so. One side will always be looking to  gain ground. Vying for the upper hand. Let’s at least be honest with ourselves about that.

If you care to look then there has been plenty of going on in the name of Scotland’s troublesome burden. The same two old sides. Protestant and Catholic. The general population might be dismissive, ambivalent or blissfully naive but that doesn’t change the facts. People are fighting these old battles right in front of Scotland’s eyes.

Personally, I know I live in something of an online echo chamber. My news is filtered; therefore, my views take on that colour. There is certainly limited feedback from other views. Sometimes two plus two does equal five. And although I like to think that I can stand back and see the whole picture it probably shapes me more than I’d like to admit. One example recently that got me thinking.

I live in a world where I know that Michael Stewart is biased and playing out an agenda. I don’t consider it for a second that i’m mistaken – I have seen snide remark after snide remark for year after year of proof to secure that thinking. I have also seen examples where Rangers players get singled out for some treatment from some sections of Scotland supporters (or at least people commenting on Scottish football). McBurnie getting singled out for his performance in a game of many sub-standard Scotland performances didn’t come as a surprise. Especially when Michael Stewart led that charge (and I can guess the calibre and motives of follower that steamed in behind him). What surprised me slightly was Ewan Murray dismissing or downplaying the response.

So was I wrong here? Is questioning anything in the mainstream media really that unusual or taboo? Is it really only the “lunatic fringe” that would do such a thing?

An obvious answer would be Murray’s comments could be explained by him backing up a fellow journo/broadcaster, even if its seems far-fetched to suggest that Stewart or others aren’t swayed or driven by agendas. It suggests a couple of things, one, that Murray doesn’t follow Stewart’s work enough to notice the obvious contradictions, or that the mainstream presents information in a way that anyone who isn’t looking for agendas simply won’t notice them – partly that they’re not looking for it and partly because they don’t want to see it or even enjoy seeing it, and therefore aren’t particularly bothered by it.

This is the power of the press.

And it makes you wonder about other going-ons, things that seem so obvious or transparent when you watch them, but then it appears that the general public didn’t have a clue. They can’t have because there’s no reaction. Minimal kick-back. Not even murmur or a ripple.

A key example is the recent play against the Orange Orders marches. I put some thoughts together on it here. And here.

To summarise, it looks like a script that had been thought-out step by step and written down before. The curtains opened. The play began and the key players stood up and read out their lines. Most importantly for the participants is that their goal appears to have been achieved. And apparently the public haven’t noticed or cared, at least not enough to make a difference. To most it was just a show playing out in the background. More life unfolding. And hey presto, Orange Walks have been curtailed.

I said it before that the Orange Walks aren’t my bag. It’s not something I was brought up with. I think they need a revamp and some thorough public relations work. But going back to Scotland’s historic divides, the detractors here with their none too subtle play obviously hail form the other side, the opposing trench. They will see it as a battle to win, a win for the catholic/republican cause. And of course, where there’s a winner there must be a loser, in this case the protestant/unionist cause. We can give it different labels all we want, we can paint and deny things and tie ourselves in knots, but this is who made the play and that is ultimately their cause. With due respect to the Orange Order they’ve been asleep at the wheel here, they’ve allowed themselves to become marginalised and distanced from the Scottish mainstream. Beyond that they’ve then allowed that distance to be rotated to an angle where it can then be attacked from the direction of mainstream (sound familiar Rangers fans?).

The SNP, with it’s newly recruited republican friends. It’s added muscle and backing to the catholic side of the struggle. Simplistic but true. The list of characters making the public political plays are strongly rooted in that tradition. Many of whom have been imported from across the waters, where anything goes and it’s not unfair to say that Scotland isn’t aware or awake to the tactics and simply doesn’t recognise the game that’s been played.

So the power of the press, when you own the news and the narrative you can dictate what is allowed to happen and even boldly just hide it in plain sight. As an example, somehow celtic fc, through its well-placed supporters and cynical politicking, managed to walk away from the Commonwealth games with millions of pounds worth of upgrades to both stadium and surrounding area. The unprecedented use of a different stadium for opening and closing ceremonies allowed them upgrades and benefits as well as a very high level of exposure on an international level. These are the benefits that we know about, I’m sure from the near half a billion-pound budget that there’s plenty more we’ll never be aware of. That stadium and surroundings certainly fared better than the national stadium at Hampden, you know, the actual venue for the games. And all of this without a whimper in the press, no questioning or criticism. And a public none the wiser. An impressive trick. The perfect crime.

If you wanted you can throw plenty more examples into the bucket. The ease of attack on Scottish institutions from dubious sources. A chipping away at the Protestant block, designed to convince anyone not identifying with the (admittedly failingly spiritless) Church of Scotland that they’re not on that side, therefore by default on the other side. A thousand cuts and we should know where that leads. A plethora of expendable campaign and charity groups working under banners such as racism and sectarianism, but ultimately carrying out their own one-sided witch-hunts. The selective representation of Scotland’s history and one-eyed presenting of it. Seeming trivia like Gaelic road signs in areas where no one speaks it and never will. Jobs for the bhoys and seats at the trough, typically filled with the swill of public money. Junkets for willing messengers and kick-backs to the club. Tracts of land for knock down prices – cleared of listed buildings free of charge. Independence for the worst of reasons and by the worst of actions, but no-one cares to mention it. The editors wont. The editors will play along. The free pass at Holyrood for the catholic church and the accompanying cold, merciless blind eye to the legion of child-abuse under in its name. And under celtics name. The concession to the reprehensibly divisive schooling model – Bigotry is learned at home? Possibly, but it’s reinforced through society and echos within its structures. And separation. And propaganda. Condoning and cavorting with members of the IRA. On one hand arguing those songs and that cause as political or freedom fighters, whilst at the same time dragging long-time benign religious marches into that bed and using it to shame them – make up your fucking minds. The worrying trends in Scotland’s policing and justice system; where keeping hold of evidence, length of sentence and even the appetite for justice appears linked to who you are and where you come from.

Added comment: this may come across as a rant and simply selecting what I want to see. Maybe it is. But where is the balance? Where are ones on the other side pushing their luck? Playing the system? I can’t think of many. And believe me, the way our press is, we would hear all about them.

Scotland can be a great place, but these things are far from it and I’d hate to see what kind of nation would be born and wrought from this furnace. Call it what it is – autonomous, hostile guerrilla warfare with no fixed morality and a multitude of masks. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter your excuses.

From the questionable allocating of funds from a massive international event to simply picking on Rangers players during the weekly BBC highlights programme, it’s a considerable spectrum. Maybe I am the lunatic fringe, maybe this is simply seeing things that aren’t there. Or maybe I happen to have a learned clarity of what I’m looking for and so can see it clearly when it occurs. Perhaps I would do the same and opposite should the opportunity arise. Perhaps not. Is that human nature and these opportunities happen to be placed there for the right people? And all the while all that the general public see is the closed curtain as the set behind is arranged for the next show.

Not much By Mouth…

If you’ve read Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari you’d have your eyes opened to some disturbing yet gnawingly obvious assertions. The author makes the case that much of drug related legislation and the drug war as we know it is based in social prejudice. The origins, the people, the politics and one hundred years of evidence doesn’t paint a pretty picture or loosen Hari’s assertions. The demographic of the prison populations and the colour or lack of wealth of those at the blunt end of the war tells its own story.

Yet amid all this there exists the most uneasy paradox, namely, many of those on the law enforcement side are genuinely there for the best intentions. They have an honest, pure investment and reason to enforce prohibition and work against drug use in society. And yet, they are the arbiters of a machine built to the racially prejudiced specifications of its architects.

And it must’ve been beyond the wildest dreams of those architects to have someone devoted and driven to implement something ultimately corrupt?

This is where my concern and confusion over Nil By Mouth (NBM) continues, of their purpose and actions. The origins and intent and soundbites are pure and decent enough. But that has to be followed through by probity and consistency. I expect unthinking loyalty or partiality from a rival fan but from a self-proclaimed bastion of good? Well, I demand more.

As a Rangers fan there’s been a recurring nuisance factor to NBM over the years. Bad press, and there’s been plenty, has often been accompanied and bolstered by NBMs sound-bites. Of course, I realise that this on its own means little, if there’s been reason to get involved and if the Rangers support has pushed decency then reminders or reprimands aren’t without foundation. In my experience, no Rangers fan has ever once asked for special treatment or claimed infallibility.

There comes a point when acknowledgement of the operating environment is required from NBM. If every time the phone rings and it’s a celtic-supporting hack wanting another run at Rangers, when we know there’s similar and worse elsewhere, then they have to recognise that the game is rigged. Call it out, if you will. If not, they then simply become part of a sectarian machine.

NBM took a back seat a few years ago. Presumably they knew their legitimacy was being tested in the football arena and they had become a political tool which was failing its mission statement. There is the uneasy truth that here we have an anti-sectarianism charity (Scotland’s leading charity for challenging sectarianism) that has lost the ear of half of the divide and doesn’t seem remotely perturbed by that. Indeed, there’s a strong case can be made that sectarian tension has increased in the West of Scotland under their watch. Think about that for a while.

Some context, following last weeks Old Firm game a guardian journo commented on how great it was not to have sectarian songs on show and that strict liability must be the way to go. That’s some claim. Plenty sectarian songs were on show, songs for the sectarian IRA and songs about Huns and Orange Bastards – perhaps he’s been conditioned to just accept the right type of sectarianism? UEFAs zero tolerance stance may be justified and inarguable but let’s at least concede that those running the anti-sectarian charge in Scotland have failed dismally for the years. Twenty years on and we currently have one side grudgingly editing its playlist under duress whilst the other ramps it up with impunity. Alongside this the undercurrent of emotions to injustice, mistrust and agendas rages with increasing energy. Only a fool would judge that a success.

My stance has always been that tensions can be tempered, fairly easily. You put all cards on the table, you leave agendas aside and then you address what’s unnecessarily offensive in a fair and balanced manner. You state what’s a problem, what needs fixed and what’s unhelpful to both football and society. From clubs, to governing bodies, to Holyrood, to the press (crucially the press as their the link between all parties and the public). So you agree on a road map then you follow it through in a firm but fair manner. The concessions forgone on any side are softened by visible and measurable concessions elsewhere. The hope is the situation is then defused to a state of adequate acceptability.

When conceding that both sides haven’t been treated fairly, that the loaded policies have failed, and many avenues haven’t yet been explored, then it’s saddening to see go all in NBM backing strict liability. This is something that Rangers fans view with scepticism, as we see it as another play to influence matters on the pitch from the outside. Our basis for this? The cast of characters calling for it. And the lack of effort and balance put into previous strategies.

One of NBMs historic sound-bites has been to address “baggage” – and this is something the West of Scotland has in spades. No argument there. My interpretation has always been that baggage can be identified and then sorted into helpful, benign and unhelpful. Over time society improves if the unhelpful baggage is dropped and the good stuff is embraced or at least recognised by all.

The following issue isn’t a Rangers issue per se. It isn’t something I personally have anything to do with, but the overlaps with the above are many, as are the characters who appear.

Firstly, when talking about the right to march then the Orange walks are something that can be debated. But if we’re going to attempt to categorise these marches as baggage, then it seems illogical to add more baggage to that mix. The rise of irish republican marches is just that. When that is then further laced with open support from proscribed terror groups then decisions have to be questioned. It appears that it’s not triumphalist or provocative marches that are the problem, only who does it.

Given the zero tolerance attitude on singing it is therefore surprising to see NBM backing these republican marches, through lack of condemnation for the original decision. It’s more baggage on the pile after all. Their tweet read “…those who wish to drag the rest of us into their more (mire) of bigotry and hatred” – now, any sane person would think this was directed at those wanting and allowing extremist republican marches through the streets of Glasgow in the first place.  But it doesn’t appear to be, or they would simply say so and condemn the GCC and the supporters of proscribed terror groups and sectarian murderers.

Further questions are raised at their backing of Humza Yousaf – who is as compromised and as unbelievable a politician as Scotland has ever produced. Let’s been honest, a child can see the play being made here. The worst and most unacceptable parts of irish republicanism are being used to change the landscape on walks. A strawman argument. Presumably a debate on the merit or not of Orange walks on their own isn’t possible or cannot give them what they want from it. And so these tactics are adopted, to the detriment of Glasgow and everyone in it. And NBM fall into step behind it. It’s saddening stuff.

Of course, there’s no loss of irony that a false balance had to be established to chip away at one side on this issue, when the same strategy was wilfully ignored on the sectarian singing issue. We have all witnessed the clamour to downgrade sectarian republic singing to political whilst lambasting other songs, now contrast to the attempt to classify religious walks (from the Orange order) on par with pro-terror group marches.  It’s astounding hypocrisy, simple as.

On the subject of baggage. I had noticed the following tweet from NBM. There is no accusation that every child that goes through any schooling system picks up its flaws and prejudices. But, it is a fact that Scotland’s schooling system is intrinsically sectarian – the clue is in sects being stakeholders. It may be a benign or liminal level of sectarian baggage, but it is just that. Of course, one could point to the very sectarian aspects of the churches veto on employees and the legally approved glass ceiling for those not of a chosen religion. A sectarian signing policy in black and white in 2019.

All of this suggests it will be very difficult to tackle a problem when it can’t even be conceded that a problem exists. It also makes it very difficult to explain the fluctuating tactics and stances, together with the company they keep, unless you factor in agenda.