Jumping off the merry-go-round.

There’s nothing new in this blog. Nothing that hasn’t been said one hundred times before. I started writing some thoughts down months ago because it would be relevant again soon enough. It appears to be relevant again.

There was an article on Sky News a while back where one point stuck with me. The article was based on a celtic player and made mention to something from a relatively long time ago, a time in the past. The mention was on both Rangers suggested signing inclinations and comment the Scottish society in general. I’m sure the inclusion of that item, on some level, was to tar one side whilst rallying the other. The omission of some considerable points of similar merit on the other side left the article incomplete, in my opinion anyway.

Intentionally or not, this all drags people into the vortex of old troubles and issues. A new generation picks up the old baggage, and then lashes out, acting out prejudices in the pursuit of settling old debts (real or imagined). The new generation on the other side, who has nothing to do with the original charge, then gets the brunt of any response. It drags them in and gives them something to react to. The cycle continues. This is the blessing and curse of the Old Firm rivalry, and wider Scottish football rivalries. The get-it-up-ye merry-go-round.

Of course, these aren’t single-issue rivalries. Everybody will have their own point of view and influences, be it singing, slanging, bias, soundbites, culture, religion, violence etc etc. Their own hobby horses and pet peeves and a compass of what is acceptable or offensive and what’s not. Points of view and incidents will be sought out to suit and reinforce agendas. This is then amplified with where a person or community is in their life at that moment.

This is the way of the world, everywhere, and it’s all fine and good fun if you keep some sort of grounding on things. It is too easy to get carried away and sometimes you need to step back, jump off the merry-go-round and ask, what am I doing? Or what the hell is actually going on here?

A bit of introspection first. It’s fair to say that singing targeted songs about others and calling them out as bastards isn’t the most politically savvy of tactics. If we were to analysis how we’ve been systematically levered from the mainstream to the outsider in our own backyard then this would be the recurring crow bar. Celtic have been able to use it to circle wagons and obviously drew strength from it, like we have from their songs and actions. The language is none-too-subtle, fenian is debatable on many counts of definition, merit and actual offensiveness, but fuck-the-pope and others much less so. The context to all of this was an escalating arms race of offensive singing between natural adversaries. The enemy, the Glasgow-based supporters branch of the irish republican army.

Remove that context. Stand the songs alone and it’s something less explicable, less justifiable. Worse than that, it’s something that can and has been weaponized and used to score points. The bigot message is peddled and driven home and the seed placed amongst other the supports of other clubs and the wider community, who as rivals (in many senses) gladly accepted the open goal. Pointing out the lack of comment on the other side achieves nothing. We do not control that narrative, they do. They do not care for balance. And thus coloured as toxic the Rangers carriage at the front of the Scottish football train had been decoupled from the rest – using our collective boldness and bluster against us.

Scottish football has a slightly different landscape from Europe and UEFA, for the moment at least. The status quo on certain songs is that we derive no net benefit from them. Football songs have their respective community and cultural value but only to the point where the negatives start to outweigh any positives. Indeed, with hindsight it is clear that for years these have been counter-productive and used against us.

A pro-Rangers songbook is the only safe way to go, to be honest it should probably always have been that way but we have allowed ourselves to become side-tracked and then ambushed.

The media have proven that they have no desire for balance or solutions. They’ll seldom admit to baggage or poor behaviour elsewhere, let alone bang on about it. They’ll barely mention far more serious crimes and crimes deserving proper draconian sanctions. No mistaking, the media and others are hell bent on whipping up chaos against Rangers. And this is what frustrates most, the knowledge of how to improve things and dampen tensions in the wider society exists but there’s no appetite or desire for that, despite proclamations. The medias stance is often intended to be a red rag, we need to recognise this and not fall for it.

Rangers have held many initiatives but UEFAs latest charge (at the bidding of the shockingly partial FARE) has come as a sharp reminder that nothing can be taken for granted – balance and measure do not always apply where certain organisations are concerned. Although we like to think of ourselves as a big fish we are insignificant and expendable in the eyes of UEFA.

In short, us the support need to sort this out, and quickly. As a club we are on to so many good things for the first time in a long time, and we need to ensure that this comes first and do whatever we must to back that cause, the one that truly matters and unifies us all.

Longer term, we should of course recognise our part in this, own any foolishness. We should learn from the numerous clear signals missed along the road to where we are now. We should also understand how agendas and various agents that have used too and take those lessons on board.

Troublesome tribalism: does it matter who asks the questions?

That’s the problem with the tribal nature of football at times, and of football and politics in Scotland – folk will act tribally. You’d be wrong to assume anything else. The loyalty to your own group, or identity, conditions you against impartiality; and more so when that impartiality damages your tribe.

tribalism

So where a situation arises that requires digging, leg-work, probity, disclosure, then only those proven to be wholly professional, non-conflicted or uninhibited would be trusted to deliver to a suitable standard.

Within that there’s another truism. A member of the opposite tribe will typically dig deeper, work harder and longer if it derives damages to an opposing tribe.

Case and point. Rangers tax case. The genesis of this appears to be a leak of certain private documents which then ended up in the hands of Celtic fans. A resolute process then set in motion. Evidence was harvested and then sculpted into a formidable weapon. Other structures were constructed around this and the rest is what it is. The cry to this day is that crimes were committed and justice had to be done.

A rather obvious fact of this entire process is that the key players were not Rangers fans, in fact it was predominately Celtic fans or had links back to Celtic. The press in particular had a large influence throughout the course of events.

All of which throws up another couple of permutations to consider. How would the whole saga have turned out had Rangers fans been in control of the information? How would the saga, coverage and outcomes have looked had Celtic used EBTs to the same extend?

As per the opening statement of this article both would presumably look a lot different. Rangers fans would downplay events or certainly not consider them worthy of the shit-show that subsequently ensued. The truth is we’d probably have sat on any leaked documents and the chain reaction would never have begun. The same applies to a switch in character positions. Celtic fans would not have gathered data against their club, would not have built a case and driven it through – especially if they’d suspected a possible endpoint to be liquidation and newco of the holding company and a demotion to the bottom division. This anticipated level of damage is an important factor, it’s easy to make concessions when there’s no consequences, not so much when your clubs future depends on it.

This anticipated level of damage is an important factor, it’s easy to make concessions when there’s no consequences, not so much when your clubs future depends on it.

Can we actually predict those outcomes with any confidence? Yes, we probably can. The press and BBC Scotland performance on topical football-based debates over the past decade support the theory. As an example, coverage on sectarian singing has been selective. Head-lines proclaimed, discussions arranged across the network and platforms. Celtic-friendly experts have been brought in and feel comfortable and emboldened enough to freely debate the issues, when they relate to Rangers that is. Yet when it occurs elsewhere, against their tribe, the debate is never held. Simple as that.

More importantly, it is relevant to the ongoing coverage (or cover-up) of the Celtic child abuse scandal. The coverage simply doesn’t add up. The story has not grown organically or remotely to scale of the severity. The clamour for results, to unearth information and facts and see it all through to the logical conclusion has been found wanting. If we consider that this is the self-same press that gorged themselves on the Rangers tax case, then it is not that much of a surprise. It can be explained by the same tribal behaviour.

This throws up questions on conflicts of interest. In short, any investigation or coverage cannot be expected to be completed satisfactorily if key personnel are conflicted, or tribally inclined to either suppress evidence or simply not dig for it in the first place.

There’s a point here – which can be extrapolated from the progress of the scandal so far – if the victims want to be unreservedly represented, if they want their story and situation to be investigated and reported, to its exhaustible limits, then that is unlikely if people with a conflict of interest are involved. It’s a tribal certainty in fact. Some detractors certainly appear more concerned with who is asking the question, than the question itself. Crimes have been committed and justice had to be done, remember. They are also over-looking why others aren’t asking the questions, when that too is pretty obvious.

People from the same tribe can absolutely fail such an investigation, knowingly fail, but the opposite isn’t true. A serious investigation cannot be investigated too much, cannot be over-worked, too many facts cannot be unearthed. It’s not point scoring to see serious crimes given an appropriate chance at justice. It is point-scoring to deny that justice for the sake of your tribal compass.

As a disclosure it may come as no shock that Celtic aren’t my tribe. I support the rival tribe of Rangers. I know some good folk who support Celtic and even enjoy supporting them. But I don’t like Celtic, the club. They exist, I’ll concede that much to them. The sanctimonious and quixotic mythologies they peddle are mawkish and tiresome. I find the unrepentant support of republican terror groups offensive and I’ve never seen what part or future it has in Scotland.

Like every man and his dog I’d heard rumours about Celtic for as long as I can remember. The trials in the 90s came and went. Rumours persisted. Social media opened up a world of discussion and information that was unavailable before. Facts came to light. Naturally these would lend themselves to theories and the jigsaw, of perception and probability, would start to take form. The attitude and behaviour of Celtic in response to the scandal did little to endear this onlooker. New facts, new theories. Same old response from Celtic. Then Rangers tax case blew up. The behaviour of the Celtic support was something else and often still is; especially knowing that their own club had this scandal skulking in the background. Then again maybe that’s a reason why they attacked Rangers with such desperate primal vigour?

So yes, hands up, I don’t like Celtic. I don’t want to see them get away with anything. I expect the full force of the law and of any governing bodies to be brought to them where-ever it is merited. Much like they did with Rangers tax issues.

I use several examples above to set out some points but let’s not pretend that these are in anyway equivalent. Under a socially conditioned level of loading the membrane containing tribal allegiances should burst. The laws of a footballing governing body are one thing. The laws of the land and the protection of children is another. In absolute terms one is many orders of magnitude bigger.

Could my conscience cope with knowing that the management of my football club had inserted a line in a remuneration contract of a player to enable it to pursue loophole-based tax efficiency schemes? Probably, yes.

You’re clearly not going to hold the guilty parties to account, so it should be no surprise that rival tribes will.

Would the same be true for the crimes committed, or acts carried out, under-the-guise-of and then in-the-name-of Celtic? I’d like to think not. That’s for the conscience of Celtics spinners and the Scottish press and politicians to ponder – those at Parkhead, Holyrood, Pacific Quay, the Daily Record, the Herald, the Scotsman, Channel 4 etcetera. Sports clubs and religious organisation most definitely should be included in any inquiry. You’re clearly not going to hold the guilty parties to account, so it should be no surprise that rival tribes will. Rangers, like all clubs, should be part of any inquiry. The inquiry must be thorough and must be ruthless and exhaustive. If Rangers and Rangers people have questions to answer, then so be it. That would be disappointing, probably heart-breaking to be honest, but ultimately necessary. Absolutely.

Actions and consequences…

It’s the twenty sixth of May, 2019. The weather’s sunny but changeable. The 2018/2019 football season in Scotland has just ended. Two days ago Theresa May resigned as Prime Minister. Celtic football club took that opportunity to release a statement on their former employee and kit-man Jim McCafferty having been convicted of offences against children. That conviction took place 10 days previous.

Celtics statement expressed regret and sorrow but never expressed any apologises. Presumably because to do so would be to accept some responsibility, in both the legal and moral senses. And when responsibility is applied to actions then come consequences. And when crimes are involved the consequences should balance. It’s called justice.

Celtics adopted legal stance from the day that abuse was uncovered has been to ignore the issue, to hide it and to consistently accept no responsibility. That moment and that legal stance didn’t coincide with a single point in time were all and any abuse simply stopped. We know it didn’t. It continued and it was allowed to continue through either neglect or complicity. The omertà endured.

Celtics tactics of self-preservation have evolved and been adapted over the years and within the past decade phrases like “separate and distinct” began to appear in relation to Celtic FC and the Celtic Boys Club. These days “separate entity” appears to be the preferred parlance. The Scottish media also gives Celtic the (from what i can see) unique courtesy of attaching the abuse to the Boys Club. And no doubt as part of this ongoing legal think-tank came the decision to change the name of Celtic Boys Club to St Patrick’s Sports Academy. A less than subtle attempt to distance the name Celtic from the scandal.

Responsibility, what that means and what should come with it is an area of debate (at least amongst the public that aware of this scandal). The stock defence from Celtic-minded detractors is that the victims don’t want the subject raised, whilst what they really mean is that they and Celtic would prefer that the subject wasn’t discussed. Unfortunately for them this has proven to be untrue with many victims stepping forward and demanding that Celtic accept responsibility and show some form of long overdue contrition.

Without a doubt the coverage of the scandal in the Scottish press has been bizarre. A story of its magnitude and severity, relating to an institution of Celtics standing, should be front page billing. The threads, lose ends, cast of famous and well-known characters involved, almost every connotation lends itself to months of debate and speculation across on any platform. And yet that hasn’t happened. The why is perhaps more obvious; simply, many key people don’t want Celtics reputation damaged, don’t want their chosen legal strategy undermined and for the good of the club they want any financial impact to be kept to a minimum. Against that the victims requests are secondary.

We’ve seen a slightly change in tact recently with some cheerleaders asking for Celtic to say sorry, but at pains to assure the public there is no associated blame. A weak but perhaps necessary concession to save face considering the rate at which evidence is accruing. Let’s be honest the likes of Graham Spiers, James Dorman MSP, John Mason MSP only want the best for Celtic and this has been a proven part of their operating model for many years. Unfortunately for them the family of Andrew Gray are determined and relentless in their demands for answers; where wrong-doing has occurred then they want it out in the open where it can be judged. But this is not what Celtic’s politicians and press men want, so they ignore the Gray family. Or they down-play their pleas. The SNPs Justice Secretary and vocal Celtic fan Humza Yousaf has chosen to ignore the Gray family all together, presumably because he realises how difficult it could make his nice and easy life. Spiers and Dornan had eventually contacted them (more through the uncomfortable fact they could ignore them no longer) and quickly realised that their determination would not be intimidated or manipulated, to the extent that they ended up in less than pleasant public spats with them – so much for sensitivity and meeting the needs of the victims?

And what the victims want may vary widely. Some just want it over with. Some just want to hear sorry. Some expect Celtic to compensate for a life damaged, knocked off course or ruined. Some expect Celtic’s part and actions to be held to a greater scrutiny and for the natural consequences to follow. The unacceptable length of time that has passed means that many of the victims are no longer with us and their wishes gone with them. They’ll never know what their justice, if any, looks like.

We know how Dornan operates and who he serves. Would we be surprised if Dornan selectively championed someone who backed his apology-without-blame stance? And then supply with the attention and devotion and prominence that the Gray family had been publicly denied from him? I say prominence because meetings with the SFA and meetings with selected MSPs and journalists to forge strategies carries a degree of responsibility, and if that process then deliberately refuses to involve all victims, or represent the views of all,  then it’s slightly disingenuous. There’s been enough games played already in this cover-up to be vigilant and cynical.

Also unfortunate for Celtic and the SFA, and for Celtic fans wishing this would just disappear, is that fact that the Penn State scandal happened. Across the pond the police acted decisively. The governing bodies acted, strongly and assertively. Penn State was dealt heavy punishments and fines as a consequence. The facts of the scandal are contained in this link.

The parallels with Celtic FC are abundant and eerily similar. Why this isn’t use as a topic or starter for discussions and as a model to follow falls into the same bizarre bucket as the rest of the coverage. Perhaps had Celtic and the SFA acted sooner then it could be dismissed. But they didn’t. And now the general public rightfully expect any club found guilty of similar conduct to Penn State to face the similar sanctions. The Scottish press and governing bodies have failed and are failing victims (and the public) miserably in this. Only recently have a few started taking this on. Perhaps some decent journalists in England or the US could join the dots and have the debate that Scotland refuses to have?

Discriminating against reality…

A couple of statements in a recent opinion piece tribute to Billy McNeill on Sky Sports drew a bit of opprobrium recently. And rightly so in my opinion…

“Irish Catholics suffered widespread discrimination in many workplaces, from shipbuilding and engineering to journalism.

Celtic’s biggest rivals, Rangers, were notorious for refusing to sign Catholic players.”

My understanding is that the mitigation was setting a scene to a rivalry, and across society in general, with a view to providing some context or depth to McNeill’s journey. But for me it reads as just another unnecessary dig against Rangers, which are occurring all too common.

Billy McNeill’s passing has highlighted an achievement that may be unobtainable for future generations; it’s not the footballing success, but the transcending of the footballing divide and receiving immense respect, as a person, from Rangers FC and our support. Ultimately, that is why using his obituary as a place to throw mud at Rangers like a bit of a cheap shot and if anything disrespects McNeill.

A few extra points on this. He played football professionally for Celtic and played his entire career there so any policy outwith that had no effect on his career.

Like most things PR, Rangers FC are behind the curve on setting the narrative on this. Instead of being something that occurs commonly (and everywhere) or something with sound mitigating reasoning or something of its time, it is used exclusively in the partisan press as a stick to beat Rangers FC. And that happens because it’s been allowed to happen, because the club has never been on the front foot with it.

In terms of reasoning it makes sense that any identity-based project is backed and ran by people with that identity in their interests. It’s straight-forward, tried and tested logic. And whilst religion can be wrongly extrapolated onto politics or other identities, it’s also Scotland’s problem that identities can be conflated back to religion, when that could actually be an insignificant or non-existent part of the picture. It’s often too facile an argument. Why wouldn’t Rangers favour the signing of Rangers fans? Celtic favour their own, demographically the numbers prove it. And unlike Rangers, they haven’t changed their tact at all in the past 30 years.

So despite the insinuation this isn’t a Rangers only phenomenon. Celtic understand it and apply it. The Celtic board is known to have ran a discriminatory policy – based on religion. In essence, the club are happy to claim they are “open to all”, happy for Protestants to pay money to support the club and to do the hard graft on the park but Celtic isn’t at all keen on non-Catholics making decisions on the clubs behalf. In that context it sounds worse, more unashamedly exploitative.

The Catholic church in Scotland understand this. By definition, it is religiously exclusionary. And beyond that, even still today in 2019, segregation in Scotland’s denomination schooling systems (de facto Roman Catholic schools) have ceilings and vetoes that actively discriminate against non-Catholics. Again, the Celtic maxim of we won’t integrate with you but you can integrate with us prevails. And yet it is trumpeted as diversity by those setting the narratives (unsurprisingly also those with a vested interest in the system).

If you want further examples of modern day discrimination in Scotland look no further than Glasgow city council and various other councils in the Glasgow area, amongst other public funded institutions. Signing policies? Selectarianism? Endemic cronyism that happens to follow religious fault lines. Rangers fans are only too aware of discrimination and dehumanisation on many fronts these day (see examples of Susan Aitken and Co. for reported cases).

It is not that it happens that is the problem. It is that it may have happened at Rangers at some point and that Celtic fans have decided that they can extracted mileage from it, feign offense over it.

For reference (and from Wikipedia), “since 1912, Athletic Bilbao have employed a “cantera policy”, which has come to be defined in an official (although not legally binding) signing policy whereby they will only recruit players with some link to the Basque Country.”

Now Bilbao get praised for this (or at least do not get berated for it). It is seen as a quirky policy. Something unique, something to add colour and depth to the world of football. Something to be celebrated? Amusingly or not, whilst researching this article the following story popped up

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/athletic-bilbao-postpone-billy-mcneill-one-club-man-presentation-at-celtic%E2%80%99s-request/ar-BBWeEnz

Are celtic and McNeill offended by discriminatory policies and practises or not? Only when it suits them and there exists Public-Relations mileage from it, would my guess.

But let’s not pretend that any policy could not or did not exist during certain epochs. As above, being actively pro-Rangers above others is not that big a deal. And ultimately it would be self-limiting for the club, as Bilbao’s policy could be. Regardless, any policy was dropped, many decades ago. It was whatever it was but that doesn’t mean it was anything to be ashamed of. We own it and we paint it as we want, not as our rivals decide. We now have the most international and diverse club in Scotland by quite some distance.

Rangers have dropped the ball over defining any policy and let others define it. That’s been a mistake, as that article showed. The vacuum of dignified silence has rarely been kind to us. It is also not true to say that Rangers never signed Catholics before Mo Johnston, with dozens having signed and played for Rangers. And Rangers having signed and played Catholics before Celtic were even formed; which, without irony. may have actually been a factor in Celtics very formation.

Now, if you wanted to paint the formation of a football club by a cynical, blood-stained, global religion, in an already divided country, to maintain that divide and play on tribalism, as a bad thing. You could, easily. And probably should. Reality is like that, no-one and nothing is brilliant white.

There’s also the question of what purpose it all serves? Of dredging up old history. In mining grievance from perceived discrimination but knowingly ignoring similar and worse acts by Celtic FC and the Irish Catholic community in far more recent times? Like the story of the stabbing in the Merchant City where it was wrongly initially reported as Rangers fans on Celtic fans, then never correctly reported as Celtic fans on Celtic fans. What is the intention behind that type of reporting? It is only going to have one outcome i.e. continuing the circle in the other direction.

As is his or anyone’s want, the journalist in question had ignored contrary reports and facts provided to him on the far from one sided nature of Scotland’s problem. No one’s denying animosity existed between groups and that manifested itself in discrimination, probably very often. What rankles is painting all pressures on the Catholic community as external, when its patently not. The community leaders had a vested interest in keeping things insular. And did. You can call it a siege mentality and sometimes it was, but then often it was fuelled and encouraged just because it could be. And it could then be of use to the shot-caller at the time.

Historic articles from the time were used to back up the original statements. Now, if you’re not actually there, been immersed in it or experience it then there’s doubts on the accuracy of the account that you’re passing on. There are always two sides to any story, and knowingly picking one sheds balance from the reality. As does knowingly ignoring discriminatory practise from your chosen side. More so if the story has been created to highlight certain aspects, which then compounds and distorts as time elapses. A good example of this is modern day Scotland where there’s a big disconnect between the number of people hearing or believing discrimination exists and those having actually suffered it themselves.

One look at media coverage in recent times and anyone who follows football will know that Celtic are pro-active and very effective at keeping their name out of the papers, when it suits. And (like the original article) are very pro-active and effective at keeping Rangers name in it. Just now, the reporting in the press does not reflect reality in that regard. I think we all feel that. Online we see examples of news-worthy stories that then do not get the exposure or coverage they’d be expected to draw. And yet, decades in the future, if anyone went back to read about it they would find very little mention of that dirt and sleaze going on around Celtic in the mainstream press. What they would find are stories, by Celtic fans, about how terrible Rangers are. Evidence shows that most high-profile acts of discrimination in Scotland today are by Catholics on non-Catholics (if you wanted to distil it down to a religious divide and still consider it relevant). From the Monklands council scandal onwards questions of over conduct and active culture-based discrimination in politics have been valid. Misappropriation of public funds and abuse of position at others expense. No better highlighted than the behaviour of many SNP councillors currently under the spot-light. And that’s just the stuff we hear about.

In the hierarchy of discrimination, I’d say the present day should be of greater weight and interest, if only because it can actually be changed and prevented. And if it doesn’t bother you now, when going for you, then why get upset about things from before you even existed?

Guard of dishonour…

He’s right of course. Colin Hendry. Celtic may well achieve 10 in a row Scottish Premier League titles, but it won’t be 10 in a row against Rangers.

There’s a few factors that add some context to this beyond Rangers simply not being in the same division for a period of time. To say Rangers demotion to the third division was based upon David Murray and his mismanagement would be correct. However, to say it all played out the way it did because of Murray’s mismanagement or because it had to be that way is not correct.

Things happened. Whyte got in – was allowed in/placed in and the however and whoever helped it happen is up for debate. One thing that sits in focus with hindsight is that Whyte was always going for liquidation. That route never brought him any obvious direct personal gains (another debate) but business wise it left only certain roads open to Rangers.

It also left the club in a state of limbo over the close season with news of liquidation for the holding company in June 2012. And with that event Rangers were parted with their membership to the Premier League. But a route existed for Rangers, with a different company set-up, to retain Premier League status. We know this because a vote took place to consider that transfer. A vote for Rangers to remain (be kept in) or be expelled (and with it demoted). The transfer of holding companies, memberships, goodwill etc is possible because it’s an admin task and it happens regularly in football without fuss, whether based in liquidation events or not.

It reads as strange now as it did then but what kind of governing body puts the fate of a member club in the hands of its rivals? Especially amid a deeply toxic atmosphere created as a direct result of a campaign that had been led by a select media few, who were repeating their lines verbatim from RangersTaxCase blog (essentially an anti-Rangers group of Celtic fans). Unsurprisingly, given the scale and volume of the lobbying, the clubs of the SPL voted to not retain Rangers’ Premier League status. In many cases that was against the financial best interests of individual clubs. Amongst this rabble, Celtic chose to vote not to retain Rangers, a vote to remove their main competition. Of course, with this, there was also a forfeit of bragging rights and claims of consequence titles, against Rangers, until our return in any case. Through the whole charade Celtic, the club and their associates, had no qualms at all being judge, jury and executioner on tax efficiency schemes in sport, we’ll get back to that.

What happened next perhaps requires some introspection from Rangers. Rangers were then voted (by the remaining clubs in Scottish football) to be allowed to enter the Scottish Football League and the talk was of allowing entry at Division 1 level. This was to try to minimise any financial damage to the clubs of the Premier League (salvage TV and sponsorship deals) despite some having just voted themselves onto the Christmas menu. Rangers were appalled at this gerrymandering and then opted for an arguably equally short-sighted response although based in good intentions.

A demotion of four divisions to Division 3 was an unnecessarily harsh punishment and unprecedented (Juventus only took a one division punishment for actual match-fixing). The question of resuming in Division 1 or at the bottom in Division 3 is a contentious one. The reasons of clearing our name, clearing our collective conscious and resetting any “wrong-doing” were sound and just, but would also appear to have been honest to a fault. And naïve to a fault, in many ways. The media that stitched the club up so badly in preceding years was never going to be trusted to properly chart the remarkable return through the divisions or sell any absolution narrative. The rival fans that revelled in (and actively drove) the clubs fall from grace were never going admit any slate was cleared upon Rangers return. And whether Rangers remained in the SPL, started in Division 1 or threw-in with the amateur teams the debt would never be enough. So why even pretend they would? And as a fan, then as now, I felt the charges were grossly overstated and the punishment excessive, so the self-flagellation seemed like overkill and reactionary.

If your detractors hate you and are determined to paint you as the bad guy then it doesn’t matter what you do. Honesty and decency is only good for your own piece of mind. In Scottish football and across the real world it often counts for nothing. Less than nothing, if there’s something at stake and someone prepare to take what you submit. Take the example of the disgraced, but still servicing, Glasgow Councillor Susan Aitken. She should’ve resigned long before now and would’ve had she been an honest politician. The truth is the dishonourable objectives of the likes of Aitken can only be completed through ignoring rules and then brazenly carrying on. It helps to understand that mindset.

Back in 2012 and Celtic had what they wanted. Their rivals out the picture for a few seasons. A procession to some cheapened titles. Many free shots at the real prize, the Champions League, and the money and prestige that holds. In 2019, we now witness Celtic full on deflection and denial mode for their past indiscretions. An initial chatter amongst their support that their club should at least say something has been replaced by a wall of silence, an understanding that the club has chosen ignore decency and brazen its way through it. And that their support will keep on message.  Admit nothing, concede nothing. The only club in world football with no boys club. It begs the question that should Celtics past actions ever result in Scottish football doing some soul-searching and self-correction do we ever think they would put their hands up and step down a division or four as atonement? Do we think Chris McLaughlin and the BBC would expend the time and energy making those demands, that they did demanding contrition from a bruised and damaged Rangers? I think we know the answer. Like Aitken, Celtics objectives are clear, win at any costs, as they’re not here to do the right thing. But unfortunately, no one is in place to hold them to account either.

What I will say is that with the way Rangers had been carved up and controlled under Charles Green then perhaps our actual location wouldn’t have mattered for those years. Had we remained in the SPL then it would’ve been in body only. It rings true that McCoist and co. realised this when the Division 3 call was made and the then owners didn’t deserve the leverage that Premier League status would afford. The subsequent boards proved that – equal measures of corporate looting and deliberate vandalism with an eye to a game of brinkmanship daring any would-be responsible owners to step up and pay up. At that time, we were so obviously fucked that Celtic could’ve even voted to retain us in the Premier League and maybe even keep a moral claim to 10 in a row. But they never, did they.

Your history is shit.

Your history is shit – we’ve seen a lot of this type of rhetoric from fringe politicians lately. One stand-out example being the SNPs green-division poster-boy Ross Greer and his weary proclamations on the character of Winston Churchill.

Whether he was right or wrong or to what degree, is a different point, the main issue for me is the why? Why the need to say anything on a man who’s not been with us for half a century?

The answer is simple. He wants to set himself and his party opposed to anything related to Scotland’s union with England. An easy way to achieve this is to attack any symbol of the Union, in an attempt to undermine your adversary. It’s negative grubby politics and it certainly cannot be described as progressive, as those dolts like to claim. Churchill being a symbol of British success, and a man of his time character wise, make him one of the more obvious targets. And with him not being around to defend himself make that attack both easier and grubbier.

Of course, this tribal muck-throwing wasn’t ever actually about real debate or learning anything from the exercise. It is solely to get some mud to stick, to make any flaws a talking point, to have them catalogued and redefined again in history, an anthem to rally your own troops whilst hoping the opposition question their origins or faith in idols or heroes and loosen the bonds to their culture.

It’s about cultural proliferation over others. And it’s that primitive energy that the ‘scottish’ independence movement are actively tapping into to fuel their latest charge.

It’s human nature, of course. Human history and human ascendency is a story of a tribes – tribes fighting, learning, honing, expanding and above all enduring. Be it at family level (genetic proliferation), local, national or continental levels. Be it ideas, cultures or religions (memes). Humans have an inherent desire to attach themselves to an identity and then forego rationality in order to protect and disseminate that identity.

And when I say forego rationality I mean anything will be justified in the name of the obtained cause.

A few obvious examples. The Roman empire. The crusades. Genghis khan. The European invasion of the Americas, where various forces drove that human flow; government policies, company policies to exploit new resources and create new markets. People wanted work, pay, land, exploration, discovery etc and a new world provided that. Of course, the people originally on that land had mixed feelings about that stuff. And the leading edge of the European advance wasn’t bothered about that, they took what they wanted and achieved it by any means. The people that rushed in behind didn’t ask too many questions about how the land was cleared for them. They got their reward or acres or new life. And although they’d be aware of how it was obtained they were prepared to turn the other way. Because that’s what people do when it suits them.

This is not unique. It applies everywhere and every time. Countless leaders and armies flying a flag of some random ideologies have (and continue to) eradicate, decimate, and ultimately replace other cultures and tribes and it’s been that way since humans appeared. So why expect to that to change? It won’t. It can’t. Pretending you’re different is just denying human nature, its denying how nature wired you.

Where a natural adversary or opponent doesn’t exist then human nature will eventually create one. Differences will appear, be cultivated, grown and exploited. Something will appear in the vacuum and comfort of peace when somebody gets bored or disenfranchised or wants to take something more from life or something that someone else has.

Where opponents already exist then they (it, the idea, the identity) will adapt and change to continue the cultural arms race. Look at the map of Britain over the years and its history; invasions, uprisings, battlefields, massacres. Unfortunately, but undeniably, most of it boils down to catholic vs protestant to some degree in the past 600 years. We are fortunate in this age to have had all that recent civil blood-letting replaced by democracy – a safer way to play at armies, but it is still conflict at its base level. It sates the human drive to push and dominate in the name of whatever chosen flag.

Democracy allows people to have their fights with words. A benefit it so many ways. But where before a lamentably sorry physical specimen like Ross Greer would’ve had his say ended abruptly in a muddy field, he’s now allowed to take part. And his words are a chest thumping challenge to the opposition. He and his culture feel it is ready to challenge and take over, it wants to take, it wants control. The SNP have aligned with whoever they believe can help them – or perhaps more accurately the catholic side of the long running feud have aligned with the SNP. The Catholic Church brings its significant weight to the battle, its pre-packed voting block and political and media muscle in return for handouts and concessions from the SNP, at the expense of the Scottish tax payer. Like Greer’s digs at Churchill, he and his peers indulge in some unsubtle signalling to Irish Republicans through endorsing the IRA and their acts and basically jumping into bed with anyone that’s an enemy of Britain. More recently, they invited a Palestinian representative to Holyrood and celtic park (sic); for those not in the know, the courting of the Palestinians by some has origins known to begin in the exchange of terrorist tactics in the 70s and 80s. Which is short term thinking to say the least, when your allies have the same goals as you (helpful) but no intention of sharing for too long (awkward) and on some level they see your identity on similar terms to British identity you’re currently knocking down (problematic). But sometimes a win in the present time is enough. And all that matters. If your opponent is damaged does it matter by whom?

The errors of simplifying entire nations into one personality and unconscious self-loathing is perhaps best demonstrated by the Republican of Irelands posturing on the Brexit issue. They are clearly aligning themselves with the EU and against the UK. Reasons provided online include 800 years of British inference in their affairs. That may be true. But nobody is 800 years old. Or even 200 years old for that matter. They have also been independent for 100 years. Not many people are 100 years old. So that excuse comes down to harbouring and nurturing cultural grudges, a lot of which often have nothing to do with the individual or their experiences. The ROI kicks back, as is its right, and people in the UK cheer. An obvious point here is there are more people of Irish extraction in the UK than in RoI. That by cheering on any retaliation they are applauding an attack on themselves (or their chosen identity by default of location). Like it or not, they are now the UK. The people of Britain. They are as much to do with Britain and its foreign policy today as almost any citizen over 800 years. Because to state the obvious, decisions and directions are made by a few, and everyone else has little opinion but to go along and make the best of it they can.

Which highlights the problem of baggage. Or opposing ideologies. Or carry grudges over borders and generations. At some point it will result in hassle, especially when a wrestle begins for power. Over something when viewed from above are merely irrelevances – as all human politics reduce into.

Of course, if everyone else is carrying baggage then why can’t you? It’s a fair point and perhaps it doesn’t really matter. But taking that further, if it is known that certain believes could be a hassle or a source of potential trouble then why wouldn’t a country (or prevailing rulers of that country) want to protect its own identity and discourage unhelpful identities? Or take steps to minimise any risk of rebellion from those sources? Society works best with a strong common thread holding everyone together and enough variety to keep everyone happy. Break or fray that thread or get the recipe wrong and instability awaits, almost always. But that’s a different debate.

So maybe this is just the latest in perpetually shifting forces acting on the human landscape. Greer’s team a predictable blip on the political radar. So his actions are to be expected, and some will support. Likewise, others wont and will work to resist.

The best way to deal with Ross Greer? Fight fire with fire, take his heroes and knock them down – there are characters flaws aplenty to prise open. Take his ideology and expose its flaws – no nationalist can legitimately claim any high ground. Use his disrespect to undermine him and his party. Or equally, go on the front foot, use his words and actions to rediscover or repair common bonds between the quiet and respectful or repair common bonds between the quiet and respectful majority and flush his refurbished, upstart ideologies back down the plughole.

Strict liability at what cost?

To save me writing out my feelings and opinion on the subject I’ll just direct you to some Rangers podcasts.

Heart and Hand – Flagship show 04/03/2019 (~51 mins on)

Gersnet – Week 34 Show 04/03/2019 (~45 mins on)

There’s many more pods, articles and debates on the subject. These ones in particular contain open and honest debate and discussion from Rangers fans on the subject. Various views are offered and ultimately there’s a recognition to the reality of the situation which, in my experience, ties in with that of the wider online and offline support.

If I could condense the main points they would be:

  • Phrases and songs, specifically fenian and fuck the pope, are outlawed.
  • A general recognition of this status quo exists across the Rangers support.
  • These songs are now largely obsolete and that they can and will hurt the club – whether it be through fines or just image and brand going forward.

There’s two trains of thought on progress (of the anti-sectarianism drive).

  • One, get our own house in order regardless.
  • Two, progress must be seen across the board before further or lasting concessions be made. As what is beyond doubt that other clubs have problems (behavioural/sectarian/offensive etc…).

Further on point two – progress (eradication of songs and phrases) has stalled because of a lack of ownership from other clubs, and the media failing to apply same standards across the board.

There’s a perception within in the Rangers support that focus is primarily on the Rangers support, and the Rangers songbook and behaviour. Where coverage, sensationalism and influential people only appear to highlight Rangers at opportune times and with a specific narrow narrative. That’s a conclusion I came to myself a while back and honestly little I’ve seen since has dissuaded me from that view.

Progress on bigger picture societal issues must be grounded in trust. Trust that everyone is doing the right thing for the right reasons. Inconsistency throws this trust into question. And despite the best efforts of some in the media we know what goes on elsewhere – it’s not rumour or hearsay, it’s captured there in video. For example, we saw and heard a full stadium at Parkhead indulge in sectarian singing. We saw the hanging effigies. We see the continued support of proscribed terrorist organisations. We saw Celtic fans fighting and trouble in Valencia. We saw the Hibernian fans invade the park at the cup final and make a beeline for our players. All of which drew a notable lack of action and comment. Some of those so vocal and pious now said nothing on those incidents, which are only a small sample from a very big list. Those leading figures have proven themselves not to be trusted. The obvious inference is they are only in it to damage Rangers. This theory has been proven time after time. Any interest suddenly stops when the scope widens beyond Rangers. When other teams might actually have to concede poor behaviour or drop deliberately offensive material? The subject changes. Or when it looks like society could come under the microscope and Scotland might have to air its dirty linen and actually give it a wash. Heavens forbid.

Which leads us to the current landscape. Strict liability has popped up again. And the main protagonists appear to be pursuing it with some vigour. Again, a quick look at those involved (James Dornan, Humza Yousaf), their background, their allegiances and you cannot help but think there is more to this than doing Scottish football a favour.

In my opinion, we have witnessed direct, stage-managed, political interference in football. Fairly recently in fact. Lennon raised the issue in November 2018. Valid complaints or not, the timing felt forced. Straight on the back of it we had James Dornan (yes him) asking FM Nicola Sturgeon to condemn anti-Irish bigotry. Not bad work from what was a thrown coin, in a match were a Hibs fan also punched the Hearts goalkeeper.

Individuals aside, my problem with this drive is that fairly obvious factors and relatively simple steps have been ignored and over-looked to get to strict liability. Following Steve Clarkes press conference, Dave King issued a statement reiterating that the club abhors that type of sectarian abuse. That it is unhelpful and unwanted at Rangers. Now considering the sectarian abuse (and physical assault) of Kris Boyd by Celtic fans a few days before the obvious move, by a fair and honest media and commentators, would’ve been to ask Peter Lawwell to clarify Celtics abhorrence of that sectarian abuse and chanting. It never came. Progress and trust ground to a crunching halt, again. No statement. No ownership. No concessions. No contrition. Added to the mix a full Celtic park singing about Steven Gerrard being an orange bastard and chanting for huns to go home on the 02/09/2018, then a small statement of condemnation would seem a reasonable request.

Of course, all of this merely has Rangers fans asking, again, what are they up to?

Nil By Mouth, the anti-sectarian charity, has been given exposure by the press and backed plans for Strict Liability. And although condemning all acts when asked, it doesn’t sit right that they wilfully ignore a rather important point – that they’re only asked when Rangers are involved and they’re only asked by people with a dubious record on the subject. As a Rangers fan I don’t need to concede anything other than for the right reasons, the good of my club and my own conscious. I’m expected to be partial at times, unreasonable even. All fans have that default right. Management of clubs and management of the game should be held to higher standards. And Nil By Mouth as the go to voice in the anti-sectarianism drive, would be expected to have the highest standards of all. Where the message transcends everything, where it is blind and calls out all prejudice and sectarian actions, where ever they exist.

In short, I’d expect NBM to call the media out if they’re failing the subject, to point out double standards and agendas and impart due blame for halted progress, wasted efforts or making situations worse. I’d absolutely expect them to refuse work with James Dornan and Co., or where they have to, to make it clear that they so in the knowledge that he’s a proven bigot and cannot be trusted. And to call out Celtic for their lack of a statement and as a club tacitly condoning (sometimes/mostly actively encouraging) such behaviour in their stadium and within support groups.

Now that would gain trust and repair bridges. That would pull the comfort blanket from all supports and remove the whataboutery excuse that exists when double standards are applied. Fair press and exposure would shame all (because let’s not pretend it’s only in Glasgow where offensive or sectarian behaviour exists).

Do that, treat the subject fairly and my guess is that you’d seldom hear songs and phrases again within the Rangers support. Strict liability is not required. The wider support is prepared to let stuff go if others do to. A strong steady message from the club and fans groups would follow suit; initiatives would appear to push pro-Rangers songs and replace any banned songs. It would make that different knowing that this was truly a football wide issue and that football, press and politicians were dealing with it, and not just using it as a stick to beat Rangers FC.

So yes, progress could be made. Fairly quickly and easily in my opinion, as much of the foundations had been laid already.

But then it could have been like that 10 and 20 years ago too.

So there’s the question for anti-sectarian groups and charities and politicians. Do you actually want progress? Do you want buy in and trust from the majority of the football going public. Or do you want more of what’s gone before? Because that’s what this strict liability looks like. And beyond it a wasteland where perhaps the bad words are gone, where examples have been made (presumably of Rangers), but where the division, mistrust and hate within society is greater than before. Because that is what a poorly delivered, poorly backed and proven to be partial strict liability will deliver.

Steve Clarke – Call it all out

Let me begin at the end. If you wanted to curtail the use of sectarian language at football and promote a wholesome, inclusive message you could. The Scottish press, you could, if you wanted to.

But I think we’re all long enough in the tooth to understand that the press, and the politicians, those noble, righteous crusaders have failed the subject, utterly.

The latest storm. Steve Clarke. His team, tore asunder 5-0. He took the opportunity of the post-match interview to claim he’d been called a fenian bastard at Ibrox. Did it happen? Yes, it probably did. Is it that a big deal? Now that’s a different question.

As always hypocrisy doesn’t take long to show itself in Scotland. Here’s Clarke’s words after his striker, Kris Boyd, receiving sectarian abuse and being hit by a coin the week before.

“There’s nothing wrong with going to a stadium where the atmosphere is hostile, as long as it’s restrained hostility; at the end of the day, it’s a sporting contest, I’ve got no issue going into a stadium where people are booing and shouting at you but when they start throwing things, that’s too far”

A bit of context. Clarke had earlier said that Rangers striker Defoe should be banned for diving, during one of his press conferences. This was for a game which 1, didn’t involve his team and 2, didn’t really involving any diving either. Steven Gerrard questioned Clarke’s class in raising such a matter. Possibly a bit of mind games both ways. Rangers play Kilmarnock shortly after and Power receives a yellow for a high challenge that catches Ryan Jack in the head. It looked bad and probably should have seen red. Clarke chooses not to mention it. That’s his call, it’s his team, to his advantage to not dwell on it but slightly undermines his probity on future matters.  Next, and during an eventful Kilmarnock vs Celtic game, Scott Brown escapes a red early in the game for another dangerous, potentially leg-breaking challenge. Killie fought hard and ultimately lost and lost a player of their own to a red card. And had they had a man advantage for most of the game, who knows? But they certainly would’ve had a better chance at one or three points. Strangely, Clarke never mentioned that decision that disadvantaged Kilmarnock. Scott Brown, the consistent anomaly of the much-maligned Scottish refereeing and compliance officer system. It seemed an odd omission from Clarke.

But more than that. The sectarian abuse of Kris Boyd did happen during that game. And the assault by a coin. Clarke barely mentioned it. No defence of his own player. He didn’t want to dwell on crowd behaviour. It’s hard to find any other conclusion than he didn’t want to dwell on a subject that makes Celtic look bad. Clarke is a well-known Celtic fan, you see. I couldn’t tell you if he’s a practising catholic though. I do know that plenty Rangers players are and no-one’s bothered anymore. Religion is a non-issue.

Of course, the other side of the coin, is that Clarke doesn’t mind raising any subject that make Rangers look bad. Even if it means contradicting his words from a few hours earlier.

It’s not the first time someone with links to Celtic has went down this route to detract or distract. https://uppingtheoutput.home.blog/2018/11/09/a-lie-rubber-stamped-by-holyrood/

Should any verbal abuse happen? Probably not. Does it happen? Absolutely, at almost every ground and almost every week. If you wanted to find examples and make a big deal about them you could. Not a problem.

The word Fenian. Political, yes. A descriptor for a certain type of Celtic fan? Absolutely and without question the majority intention of its use in Scotland and at Scottish football. Used as an epithet for Catholics, at times, yes. And for the latter that’s how the ground currently lies and therefore any (unwanted) use is termed sectarian.

So should Rangers fans use it? No, because for that reason it could get the individual in trouble. Personally, I don’t believe there’s a real sectarian intent problem, per se, but there’s a cultural lag that outlaws its usage. If you had to shout profanities at Clarke then calling him a horrible Celtic bastard would’ve been more accurate and would get you and the club in less trouble and less bad press.

And that’s where we are. Bad press. The media aren’t bothered about eradicating or educating. That would be a noble cause. It would be welcomed. Fifteen, even ten, years ago I was fully on-board that train. An open, shared environment with parity across the board and any mistrust or agendas put aside for football. But let’s be honest, we’re miles from that (at the coal face at least). The main commentators are only interested in using it as a stick to beat Rangers (and the support) with. Perhaps through size and dint of coverage Rangers are the most visible but we are not alone or out of scale with other clubs and their one-eyed prejudices. Ultimately it boils down to if others cannot concede failings why the hell should Rangers?

Don’t believe me? Compare the difference in the uproar and outrage to the sectarian abuse from the Celtic support. On Sky Sports Andy Walker laughed it off and claimed Kris Boyd loves it. The BBC describe the Boyd abuse has “claims” despite it being clearly audible on live TV. We have prominent politicians who refuse to call out bad behaviour from their own. It doesn’t mitigate any right or wrong regarding abuse from Rangers fans but it negates the rights of those persons to preach on the subject. If you call it out, then you call it all out, and not because it might be an opportunity to make your rivals look bad.

So knowing this clear agenda why should Rangers fans care what those from an outside or opposing culture decide to preach at us on any given day?

James Dornan SNP @glasgowcathcart “Maybe we’ll stop pretending now eh. Two games in a row that Kilmarnock have had to put up with sectarian rubbish by infantile Neanderthals. So @RangersFC @CelticFC @ScottishFA @spfl how about taking your head out of the sand and dealing with it. #StrictLiabilty”

The SNPs sectarianism Tsar refused to mention it before the incident at Ibrox. Zero comment on the Celtic incident. What changed James?

As did the BBC. Tom English. Chris McLaughlin, all breaking cover.

As did Alan Cochrane, Political Commentator at the Telegraph, “Steve Clarke has been breath of fresh air to Scottish football. Now he’s subjected to anti Catholic abuse at Rangers Ibrox cesspit. Gers fans shld be banned from every other ground in Scotland until scum are eliminated.”

Explosive stuff really. Cesspit? You guessed it, zero comment 5 days before.

For you information Alan, as you will well know, there is other news currently going on. Celtic fans burn down Rangers pub in Benidorm. Celtic fans currently fighting with Spanish police before game in Valencia. Reports of £100m law suits heading towards Celtic FC from the US for child abuse. The same to follow from within the UK. A Celtic supporting Compliance Officer going rogue and upsetting integrity of title race.

So yes plenty of stuff going on to deflect from.

And for some more context. Celtic supporting Granddad tells granddaughter she should only marry a Catholic. Just a bit of friendly banter for the tabloids. Yep, Scotland is a beautifully inclusive country.

 

When will the Scottish media talk about the Celtic FC scandal?

“Very strange that none of the reports on football abuse today seem to mention the Celtic Boys Club scandal. 20 years ago”. Jack McConnell, former First Minister of Scotland, 25-Nov-2016.

It’s a tragic subject. The key parts of it certainly are. You can only hope that the legal system works effectively and sees ample justice for the victims of child abuse in football. Sensitivity needs to be applied when considering them and that goes without saying.

But that doesn’t mean the subject should not be discussed nor should the perpetrators automatically get a free pass. Accusations of point-scoring shouldn’t be enough on their own to shut-down discussion, as we’ll see later that exactly what some people hope. And it’s not incorrect to say that the whole sordid mess at Celtic developed through the will of those at the club to shut-down and cover-up what went on.

An often heard component of the don’t mention it mantra is that the feelings of the victims should be respected and by that they’re inferring that the victims wouldn’t want the story aired. Do they want the specifics forensically dredged up and poured over? Of course not. But they do want the story told. We know that a lot of the victims feel that Celtic FC are wholly responsible, in some cases, and need to accept responsibility in for that. That is from the mouths of the victims and it has been emphatically stated by the lawyers representing many of them.

We also know that some family members of the victims are on social media and online and are actively trying to build exposure, promote discussion and ultimately get some closure through the acceptance of responsibility from Celtic FC for the crimes carried out under the banner of Celtic Boys Club.

As an aside to this and in terms of respecting victims, if you open any newspaper you are met with scandal, tragedy, death and disaster. The news has to be dealt with sensibly, mostly, but the press are seldom reserved in covering the big story. Rarely would anything news worthy not get coverage because there are victims involved; in short news is news. The don’t mention it line only seems to come from those looking to keep Celtic out of the news, when the news happen to not show their club in a good light.

And it is a big story. In the past year court cases have been underway and convictions have been handed down. A summary can be found here.

One observation is that this scandal is getting nowhere near the level of coverage you would expect from a major news story. Perhaps as isolated items these cases would get scant mention in the national papers, but these items are not isolated. They are tied together by something bigger, an institution that claims to be world famous, an entity that fills sports pages and news bulletins and perhaps more than that cloaks itself in myth and sanctimony. Therefore, it has to be concluded that it is being suppressed in the media in some form.

There have been rumours of injunctions, the usual contempt of court rules during the trials; but this is what rankles me – that key players in the Scottish media go out of their way to avoid this being the story. Celtic might eventually avoid any formal punishment on the subject but they are also avoiding the due shame that should be attached to it.

There’s the suspicion that key staff from the BBC have had meetings at Celtic park, with Celtic personnel to minimise media exposure and PR damage in Celtic child-abuse scandal. One chief sports correspondent, usually so authoritative and commanding on issues surrounding football has been very withdrawn on this topic. His latest sound-bite merely a reiteration of Celtics latest plea of nothing to do with us. Contrast this with the probability that the same staff had meetings at Celtic park, with Celtic personnel to maximise media exposure and PR damage in Rangers financial collapse saga.

The SuperScoreBoard phone-in on Clyde FM is another notable party that were keen to spend years tracking off piste and into all sorts of new environments, when it suited, but now resolutely determined to stick to football.

Added to the BBC doubling down on Celtics claimed innocence was the implication of victim shaming. One BBC interviewer questioning the motives of the victims. The clear implication that seeking reparations for what is often life-defining abuse is somehow wrong. This was a tact employed by Neil Cameron at the Herald.

In an article that makes some very clumsy calls on the subject, Neil Cameron’s sketch certainly seems to stem from the same brief as the recent BBC work. Again, painting the victims as greedy opportunists was inferred by suggesting real Celtic fans would keep quiet and just get on with things (yes, really). The common threads, appearing at the same time, suggests this is being spun and controlled from one location. I wonder if the media or Celtic are concerned about how the victims would view this rhetoric?

There’s even more well-known faces in high places that have got Celtics back on this.

When brought into a discussion about the biggest scandal in Scottish football history Alex Thomson of Channel 4 news felt the need to state on twitter “Cant get bigger than cheating your way to trophies pal”. I’m not quite sure what moral reference points are required to consider borderline tax efficiency schemes above industrial scale child abuse and an orchestrated cover-up lasting decades, but Thomson clearly has them.

Unsurprisingly a few Celtic bloggers bounded to Thomson’s defence. Apparently, the reference point was that any child abuse didn’t affect how many trophies Celtic would’ve won or not? Which is wrong on many counts, because the protection of the kids should’ve been paramount in any strategy and placed above trophies, always. And if Celtic do not benefit from denying it then why the hell are they persisting with this denial, complicity and the passive-aggressive character assassinations? To answer that would be to acknowledge that they benefit greatly from denying it and that absolutely affects how many trophies they have accrued.

Another backer, this time in the political circuit. When it was put to James Dornan of the SNP that “Cynics would assume it’s a cover-up for your beloved Celtic”. His reply was “Not cynics mate, bigots”. Which is a novel twist on a now familiar theme. Apparently it’s not just point-scorers or opportunist victims that are cynical about Celtic, but a paid member of parliament would have them all derided as a bigots as well. Like I said, anything goes to protect the club, which suggest very strongly that the club needs protected. Out of interest do any other football club in the world feel the need to claim and repeat that their youth team is separate and distinct from the parent club?

There’s obviously a fear of accountability in the Celtic boardroom or more accurately a fear of significant pay outs. Even decades ago this was realised. Perhaps back then it could have even buried the club? Is every trophy since then therefore tarnished? People will do all sorts of things for large amounts of money. And that is what will be due, as a precedent and reference the 33 Sandusky victims have received a combined $93 million in settlement payments from Penn State. So with these figures morals and sensitivity go right out the window. Celtic and their mercenaries go forth and shut things down. That’s the game. Any tactic goes, just get it done. They’ve reached out before – rumours of pay offs in exchange for confidentiality. And if a few folk get upset or take offence, or if some in the media or Holyrood are seen to sell their professional integrity down the river for the club, or that justice doesn’t complete its natural course, then that’s all fair game if the club can hold on to $100m?

 

 

 

 

Heads you lose, tails we win

When you throw a coin you have a 50/50 chance of it being heads or tails. Throw it 10 times and the highest probability is it’ll land five times on each side. But then you might throw ten of one side. You might throw alternating sides. In a small sample set you’ll get variations and runs that look improbable, purely because it’s a random event and that’s what happens.

Statistically speaking is an average number of penalties per game, say 0.25 penalties awarded per match, or 1 penalty every 4 games. Rangers 4 penalties in one game against St Mirren was therefore very uncommon and stands out as such. Penalties may be expected at a certain rate but they aren’t a random event, it is not the same as flipping a coin. Rangers were dominant and St Mirren poor. The number of penalties awarded was a result of how the game developed and not a random event. It was a story because it’s unusual but nothing more.

Now, what is a story is the performance of the Compliance Officer and the use of that system.

Let’s cut to the chase. BBC Scotland, through key people within, actively dislike Rangers. A very petty squabble has been going on for years now with the stream of pettiness generally coming from the BBC. Pacific Quay in general, but the sports department in particular, spend a lot of their time antagonising Rangers and they target the club for bad press and bad PR. My perception of the BBC sports department is that some of them have pretty low professional standards (not all, but many). When they are not hiring Celtic supporting bloggers to describe Alfredo Morelos as “unpalatable” then they’re raising any incident involving a Rangers players to historical injustice status. They are then running to the front of the class and demanding the teacher has a look at the incidents they’ve found. It’s very unedifying stuff. It is also contrasted strongly against the backdrop of ignoring incidents from Celtic players. The Old Firm match on the 29th of December providing as clear an agenda commentary on a match as you’ll see anyway.

The 4 penalties against St Mirren had them up in arms. Defoe must’ve dived, surely? Again, the BBC were straight up to the teacher to point this out. The citation of Defoe, or possibility of such, was apparently rejected but it suggests that someone has a direct number for the Compliance Officer.

On to the flash point with McKenna and Morelos in the Aberdeen match. The BBC and wider press coverage of the incident was as stark as it was unacceptable. Freeze frame pictures to make it look like Morelos was the villain in the piece. The tabloid media had a field day. McGregor was also in the firing line after a decision to collect the ball whilst leading with his legs – personally I thought he could’ve avoided contact and a yellow would’ve been merited (like Ferguson later received for his pay-back tackle).

Again, the BBC were not slow on the uptake. This month more than most it has become clear (if it was ever really in doubt) that they decide what the Compliance Officer looks at, and if not, then they have a very heavy influencing factor in it, which amounts to the same thing.

As always there is another side to the coin. This was provided in Celtic’s match with Hibs. A high, studs up challenge by Scott Brown (again, yes I know). A dangerous elbow from Simunovic. And as ludicrous an attempted dive as you’ll ever see in football by Burke. Not much was made of any of those incidents and laughably it was Johnson of Hibs who was issued with a notice of complaint and a proposed 2 match ban.

Now it could be argued that Johnson and McGregor deserve to be looked at. It could also be argued that Brown, Simunovic and Burke deserve to be looked at. People are now starting to put two and two together and since the media don’t seem particularly bothered about it one supporter on twitter took the time to compile the data from the past couple of years.

Here’s how the Notice of Complaint/Tribunal table looks…

Rangers – 9
Kilmarnock – 6
Hearts – 6
Aberdeen – 5
Hibs – 5
Livingston – 5
St Johnstone – 4
Motherwell – 4
Dundee – 4
Hamilton – 3
St Mirren – 1
Celtic – 0

It’s incredible stuff really. Not because the numbers alone mean anything on their own but when coloured by actual events and incidents it’s, well, incredible. The context being in recent years we have witnessed some pretty wild behaviour from Scott Brown and Leigh Griffiths, we have seen kicks and stamps at numerous times. Other unsavory and unsporting acts. We have seen some shocking diving from Dembele, Christie and plenty others. It could easily be Celtic at the top of that notice of complaint table and no-one could have many objections.

For reference some incidents are provide in the excellent 4 lads blog.

So what is happening here?

In my opinion, we have groups of people in certain positions who’ll happily push the boundaries of professional and sporting decency for the advantage of one club, their club, Celtic. Whether this be by hindering Rangers or giving their club a free pass it all adds up to the same thing in a two-horse race.

From the outside the governance of Scottish football appears to be a very antiquated environment. Change doesn’t happen quickly and the powers that be have been slow on the uptake of a lot of new ideas and thinking. Part of that may be that they are mired in self-interest, with folk happy with their lot and happy to defend the cosy little nook they’ve create for themselves.Many of them comatosed in the comfort and security of working for a big and long established institution. Keeping the peace is paramount. So when someone disturbs the slumber by shouting and screaming then they appeasement is the order of the day. Got to keep those apple carts steady.

The flightless turkeys at Hampden really have been easy meat for the politically driven predators that have ran Celtic for the past 2 decades. Once Murray’s money and balancing influence vanished then it’s been open season. There seems to be an acceptance that if someone is shouting then they must have a valid point or gripe – the response quick, keep the peace. Celtic soon realised that this tactic would be successful (possibly more than they’d hoped) and so figured by shouting even louder or making even more outrageous claims or demands then it only sped up the delivery of the concessions they demanded.

We know what followed with Paul McBride and the Compliance Officer. A position exclusively for Celtic-affiliated lawyers. I’ll presume others at Hampden remain silent on rather obvious conflicts of interest and questions around sporting integrity for the same self-preserving reasons that allowed the circus through the door in the first place?

Similarly at the BBC. Whatever has occurred there has seemingly resulted in a cull of Rangers friendly views and a loading of the opposite mindset. We keep being told that Rangers fans exist in the BBC and yet the voice diminishes by the year? Given the local demographics the arrangement between BBC sports department and Rangers supporters seems highly irregular and for the biggest media department in the country to be so brazenly discriminatory and prejudiced against the biggest fan-base, just a mile from Ibrox, is quite something.

So between the BBC and the Compliance Officer position we have Celtic control both the poacher and gamekeeper. The media shouldn’t influence the actions of the latter, yet it clearly does. The actions of the latter should be under constant scrutiny of the national media, on the national game, and yet it’s not. In over eight years of the positions existence no-one in the Scottish media has bothered putting together a retrospective review of the position and more importantly its’ performance. It’s a double-headed coin with Rangers not in on the trick.

So as of writing in February 2019, the flawed compliance system has now conspired for key Rangers players to miss games in the title race run-in and cup competitions whilst allowing Celtic players to exist beyond the limits of the game with no punishment, not even the possibility of punishment.

Further to this there is something that both nags and disappoints me. These challenges have been obvious for a while. Why aren’t the club or fans group doing more about it?

The saying fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me springs to mind.

For want of a better analogy the BBC have been repeatedly slapping the Rangers in the face. Occasionally the club raise a protest oh, you appear to have slapped me in the face, though often not. And the BBC simply respond with yep, it must have been an accident. Now there can only be so many times that scene should be allowed to play out. And yet us fans seem to be watching it on an almost weekly basis these days.

Are we really saying that we can’t respond to this? That we cannot take the code of conduct that the BBC are bound to and find some purchase to give our club a voice in the national broadcaster? And even if the club and board are busy running a football club are we saying that as a fan base, who has helped bring the club back from the edge and have invested well to own over 10% of the shares, that we are so removed and disorganised that no-one thinks to hold and collate information on the compliance officer or the BBC? That the fan groups and factions still don’t have the confidence or unity to admit that their is a problem and pool their resources, even just once? Or that from as large a fan-base as ours that there’s no-one in the media that could cover this? Or that where that individual influence is missing that like-minded Bears couldn’t form a union of sorts to at least work out a foothold for themselves and the club?

I hope I’m wrong and that Rangers strike back soon and without mercy but for now we seem to be relying on random guys on the internet to dig out and bring forward some pretty important information.

Added to that, any hope of momentum is often countered by ex-players who seem oblivious to the game being played out. Too happy to take the coin and play the part of useful fool. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they’re actually just naive, and are genuinely just being honest in their commentary; however,  that only works when everyone is playing. Wake up please guys. Your peers across the city aren’t doing that. And certainly not about their own club.

All of which can only embolden the enemy. The BBC are certainly acting like they have nothing to fear. Like they know nothing is going to happen to them. The occasional slap on the wrist. Hiding in plain sight. They’ve had more than they could have expected or wanted out of the whole charade and anything extra is now a bonus.

And yes, there is a clock ticking on this. I’d wager in a couple of years, if everything goes their way, then you’d slowly see the reigns being released. Maybe a non-Celtic person in the position of compliance officer or what the hell, let’s just mothball the position? Or the BBC will admit that Rangers were right all along and that they’ll be gladly returning to Ibrox without Chris McLaughlin? It’s easy to make concessions when you’ve milked the system for everything its worth. When it’s all been a bonus. Besides, whoever is in next will run it properly and professionally, so who cares, right?