Why wouldn’t the officials be biased?

Whilst fans podcasts perform an autopsy on another lost cup final much of the focus has again been on some questionable decisions by the officials. Many of them are keen to stress that this isn’t calling the officials themselves, or more broadly, the refereeing culture within the SFA biased. But my question is why wouldn’t it be? Why would the refereeing system in Scotland be infallible?

I have a vivid recollection of making this very point many years ago. 2019 to be exact. My ire at that time was directed at the Compliance Officer position. A contrived role which had seen a succession of handpicked Celtic-supporters for many years. That’s one part, the key part being that each of those had displayed very clear and open bias in executing their role.

https://everything-rangers.co.uk/2019/02/19/re-refereeing-scottish-football/

This happened because Celtic had effectively over-ran the Hampden offices in preceding years and had managed to shoe-horn their people into key roles across the governing bodies. Whilst ushering dissenters (and honest men) out. Having their lawyers in there allowed them to look after their own sordid interests, to increase their power-base, hide behind a shield of legalese and to use the rule-book pointedly against rivals (I believe the kids call it lawfare these days). Back then Rangers suffered on the pitch as retrospective bans were disproportionately applied to us. Key players were ruled out at crucial times. Dignified silence reigned at Ibrox back then to, even in the face of some of the most egregious cheating you will see anywhere in world football.

A similar blight of tribal rot had spread across the BBC and Sportscene, notably STV, Daily Record, C4, as it was endemic within the SNP, wider Holyrood, the GCC; you name it, where it could be enacted then an openly hostile and partisan agenda was pursued.

But why bother? Because it proves it can be done, it’s a conquest, a sectarian badge of honour. Because tribalism trumped professionalism. For completeness, it’s been successful elsewhere, why not build as many outposts as possible, just in case! But more fundamentally, because it can have a measurable effect on the clubs (backing, goodwill, sponsorship, energy-spend) and even on the results of a season. Controlling the narrative is a huge advantage. It can hide things you want hidden and make storms in teacups, which can cause all sorts of distress for the club on the receiving end. It can ignore the fact that the Celtic-supporting CO had cited a dozen Rangers players and zero from Celtic over a couple of seasons. It can make Morelos the story for the CO to then pick up on, whilst ignoring Griffiths or Brown stamping or headbutting opponents.

Every aspect of Scottish football can be use for an advantage to some degree. We know this. It is marginal gains and all things being equal it is these things that can make a difference.

So in a world where every useful, pliable component of Scottish football has been corrupted by Celtic, why would a ruthlessly thorough and calculating club like Celtic not attempt to corrupt the biggest asset of all? The men in the middle.

For me its not even a question. I’ve seen enough since the Compliance Officer to know it’s a real and present problem. We know Doncaster exists. I’ve seen decisions being made which caused title challenges under Gerrard to falter. We know Collum exists. As does Clancy. The system chose these people and these people are the system. But the worst of the lot has been in Old Firms games in recent years. Any tight game has seen a match changing decision go against Rangers. Never the other way. It’s a standing joke amongst supporters – how will we be robbed today? We are at the statistically impossible stage of conspiracy. The bias in clear and undeniable now, as it has been for years.

My only question is to Douglas Park and his dignified silence friends and to ask what the f*ck are you doing about it? If there’s a cheating Celtic fan in position at ANY place and ANY position in Scottish football then I would demand a ruthless, calculating Rangers fan sitting opposite him to keep him honest or call him out.

A Short Study on the Tribal Takeover of Scotlands Establishment

establishment – a group in a society exercising power and influence over matters of policy, opinion, or taste, and seen as resisting change.

There’s a naivety in most people to think that things will remain the same, or if not the same, then at least the same flavour. This is especially true within a comfortable or indigenous majority, where it’s natural to just assume that order will remain. It’s a common misconception that rules and laws are absolute and that these will apply to everyone equally all of the time.

Scottish football and Scottish/UK politics have taught me a lesson in the how the world really works since the 2000s. A few observations:-

An organised minority can easily oust and control a disorganised majority.
It’s easier to take over existing organisations (and their assembled machinery) than it is to build new ones.
A few people in key positions can control entire organisations.
Identity and discrimination cards can be used in bad faith to ease people into roles and silence dissent.
Controlling the media and narrative can cover a large number of indiscretions and mischief.
If you control an external organisation then use this to fight your enemies to drain their energy. Similarly, control the narrative and have other parties fight your enemies for you.
Focus all of your energy on one battle, no matter how small, ensure the win. It will make the next battle easier.

Everything else flows from these. Once you have one person in an organisation then it is easier to bring others in and change the culture. This new culture holds the keys and can then become a closed shop and actively discriminate to preserve itself. If everyone is on the same page, from the same school so to speak, then this never needs written down. It is possible to change and bend the rules to suit needs or cause.

If you chose an organisation (be it a national broadcaster or a political party) that has a trusted reputation and known identity, then the general public will not question its actions, even if totally dishonest and at odds with previous standards. You can effectively hide in plain sight and have the reputation protect you. We saw this at BBC Scotland where targeted propaganda was put out against Rangers and was not questioned. The antagonists then hid behind the organisation and had it protect them. We saw this with the SNP, where it effectively changed skin under different leadership. And we see it with the Green party, where all-sorts view it as little more than a vehicle to hijack to suits thier cause.

I am of course referring largely to Rangers travails since 2000s, with the club being on the receiving end of any reforms. Prior to this period an accord, or at least an equilibrium, existed whereby neither side would attempt a coup; besides the wider footballing environment would not allow it or stop anything before it reached anything substantial. This is perhaps portrayed best in the common support for Labour in Glasgow. Both sides would back the working party and this would be a common bond across communities and also considered to be on a higher plain of importance than football allegiance. An instability developed in the 90s. Celtic had their troubles and Rangers had great success. There’s no doubt that jealously and spite hardened and drove Celtic people. The inattentive eye of Rangers owner David Murray left many doors wide open and disadvantageous changes were allowed to seep into many facets of central belt life.

For all intents and purposes BBC Scotland and various media outlets were hijacked. Some of the poison in the press was cultivated and dispersed from the Celtic View fanzine. Some from the wider support. The orders to the foot-soldiers was basically to protect Celtic and attack Rangers. These people were parachuted into roles across the media and sought out like-minded individuals. This suggests a force was present to make this happen at this time. One probability is that the Catholic church flexed some muscles, possibly with a view to help cover up the CSA scandal at Celtic and specifically their part in it. This then grew arms and legs and the football club soon saw and reaped the benefits of these extra powers.

With irony abound, sectarianism gave them a useful weapon to attack their rivals. As with anything which finds itself in a new or strange environment so Rangers had no defence mechanisms to assaults from national media and Holyrood. The game and rules had changed . As Rangers recoiled under the onslaught so the perpetrators gained confidence and this embolden others to step up, to forego professional codes and use their positions to attack Rangers.

I believe we’ve had 20 or so years of this. Rangers’ EBTs troubles in 2011 were another ruse used to purge Rangers’ people from institutions and deny representation for the club. The SFA and SPFL and BBC Scotland around this time are marked by a change in composition that has never been rectified. The assault garnered more strength as it overlapped with the Independence referendum. Rangers are largely seen as a symbol of Unionism and therefore something for nationalists to attack, the SNP for their part, saw this as an opportunity to grow their support. Celtic saw it as an opportunity to solidify support and was the bond between many different factions. The SNP had already declared itself the home for the catholic vote so courting the anti- Rangers vote was a logical next step. Of course, this ignored the fact that Unionists were Scottish and would still exist and be part of Scotland, whether independence was won or not. Regardless, people within the SNP and Celtic cause worked together and had their fun at Rangers expense – something that’s continued long after the referendum.

What does all of this mean? It’s a window into what the world is really like. It’s more jungle than the civilised structure people want to believe it is – certainly what I thought and wanted to believe it was. It follows that these options are also open to every politically motivated entity. The Rangers board, should it wish to and with a bit of hard work, could mobilise a significant army to put Rangers’ people back into positions of influence. There would have to be planning. A strategy and a clear message would be a start. Suitable individuals identified for roles and collectively trained to respond to opportunities without thought – much like a triggered press on the football pitch. Collectively though, it requires a change in perspective for the Rangers support. It requires a reordering of political priorities and realising that if you don’t change these, if you don’t join forces to protect shared interests and take control, then someone will take it from you.

Scotlands and Celtics problem with Terrorism

If you stop tending a garden then it ceases to be a garden. Over time it loses order and then succumbs to the chaos of nature. Our society, with the freedoms and relative safety we enjoy all exist within a framework, a structure that allows us to live our lives on this piece of land. Without this order, there are no human rights or freedom to protest, no democracy and no football. This varies from place to place, city to city, but these are the gardens that we tend and inhabit and the work that they require to look their best are respect, trust, tolerance and a general agreement how things should be ordered. The UK is far from perfect but its not bad.

I don’t mind admitting that I’m a tribal being. We all are. Having that awareness should be a strength and not a failing. Takes ones to know one, hunter turned gamekeeper etc. You learn from history and you learn from human nature and you have to understand and account for the worst and build from there.

Scotland has its history of tribal issues, primarily of religious/cultural origins and much related to or at least exacerbated by the movement of people from one place to another. Tension was totally predictable – it’s a science where compatibility of people and cultures can be calculated based on history, populations, respect, offerings, grievance, rate of change and adaptability/willingness to yield. It’s not cynical to suggest some movement was encouraged to create problems and cause divisions and that a lack of mediation and attention and the stoking of divisions allowed tension to fester.

This is where the bigger questions appear. Does a collective of people have claim to any land? Does any person have a right to live in that land? Does the indigenous population have a say over who arrives and what boxes must be ticked to join them in that country? This certainly seems to be the default across most of the world’s countries and not many question the rights of those people or populations to exercise some degree of control over their land.

To continue the metaphor, gardens can look totally different and there’s no right or wrong but there are undoubtedly better ones and worse ones. They can be bland, uninspired and lacking variety. Straight lines or curves. Structured or hectic. They can be crowded and have all sorts of plants, flora and wildlife. All types can work and flourish. Humans can adapt, live and enjoy most environments they grow into to. Problems begin when things start to change, and change too fast, without planning, permission or blessing, or without any underlying explanation or necessity.

We all agree there are behaviours that are unwanted and unhelpful and most of these become criminal acts as society seeks to establish order and protect itself and its citizens. Of course, not all seemingly unhelpful acts or ideologies are illegal and that’s the part of life and freedom. Sometimes these can move society forward and improve areas that need improving. As with immigration, people and ideas from other places can add the flavour and spice to a bland or stale society. Equally, deliberate disrespect and antagonization cannot be expected to be well received.

Promotion and celebration of terrorism straddles this boundary, for despite their being laws against it, it has largely been tolerated in Scotland where many openly and actively promote the likes of the IRA. Scottish society and police clearly do not know how to handle the problem. Perhaps thinking it is simply a childish or insincere act. There is a truth in this and that Scottish football plays out tensions more like a pantomime than a war-zone. But the tension exists and is proactively kept alive. The problem is that overtime these ideas can crystalise or transpose and the reality of terrorism isn’t something Western society should be playing with or encouraging.

I saw a recent tweet from a prominent union leader in the UK where he questioned Biden’s Irish credentials for backing Israel in light of the 07-Oct Hamas attacks. I would hope an 80-year-old POTUS who was born in Pennsylvania would have his primary loyalty to the US. But it does raise the question of mindsets, ideologies and loyalties. Why do some people refuse to integrate and yield? Does this loyalty always exist to the external entity, where’s the tipping point? To be passed through generations this must be deliberately cultivated and indoctrinated. And what if this grievance-driven identity then couples or resonates with a terrorist cause at a later date, or later generation? I think we can see how this would be undesirable for everyone.

And where some in Scotland may play with terrorism, and the disneyfication of terrorism, others aren’t so twee or harmless. The obsession some at Celtic fc have with Palestine has never sat right. Not because people and groups don’t deserve support or a better life but because of the reasons for support. There’s hundreds of valid causes and oppressed people and groups to show solidarity with, however, Palestine appears to have been chosen because of the anti-Brit angle, the mutual glorification of terrorism and the apparent problem that the Irish identity has with antisemitism. None of this is particularly healthy even if the cause is. Of course, the timing of the last showing of solidarity – after the Hamas attacks which killed 1400+ civilians of all ages and backgrounds – betrays they true reasons for backing from some in the Celtic support.

Claims of moral high ground, human rights and solidarity vanish when so many innocent people are massacred. Red flags should also be ringing loud in that community and across Scotland about some of the people they have sided with – Islamic Jihadis. This isn’t a football game; this is the real world where outsiders are considered less than others and those beliefs are acted upon – not through song or through t-shirts or flags but through blood and slaughter.

It has been that way for thousands of years so would be foolish to think otherwise now. And who’s to say it stops at Israel? Because we know it won’t – humans and history tells us so. So take a look around the garden we live in, in relative safety with our stupid feuds and squabbles, and then think if you’re really heading down a road to towards enrichment or societal improvement.

Celtic CSA Scandal: Caring about Justice

‘You don’t care about the victims’, a comment often seen on social media regarding the Celtic fc scandal and very much the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is, of course, a desperate denial-soaked attempt to deflect from the issue at hand. When dealing with cold hard facts it is also a moot point. The crimes have been verified through the courts and committed to record. Other actions and occurrences are laid out in black and white in the printed press, including the celtic view. The judge doesn’t turn round to the prosecuting team and ask them if they are in fact Rangers fans just trying score points? It is the fact that the crimes have been committed in the first place that demands the truth and perpetrators are hunted down with cold unwavering prejudice. Caring about justice by default includes caring about the needs of the victims, whereas, ignoring or quietening calls for justice shows the opposite.

Surely a functioning society demands that everyone is treated equal and that the law does not discriminate? You should not expect favour or immunity based on saying nice things at the right time, cultural heritage, political persuasion, charity work or the fact the media does your PR for you. Crime is absolute. If you do not want your tribal adversaries to demand consequences for illegitimate actions then not commit illegitimate actions.

As we know, there are many layers to the Celtic FC scandal. Primarily, there are the individual crimes and this is all about the victims. This is the coal face and where the real damage was done. The legal system and justice should be there for them, as should public support. This isn’t isolated to celtic and everyone affected, at any club, needs recognition and justice, in its many forms. The government and governing bodies really need to do more here.

Now, what sets Celtic FC apart and where their scandal diverges from other instances of abuse across football is the scale and organised nature of the abuse. Then on top of that further is the organised nature of the subsequent cover-up and damage limitation measures – some of which enabled abuse to continue and most of which tormented victims all over again, for years. This is where it becomes an institutional problem and not just an abuse problem – a celtic fc problem, if you will. In a way, this element is no longer solely about the victims, this is where the fabric of society and football is soiled and damaged by actions to protect celtic fc, both internally and externally. This is where government and governing bodies have a duty to show that this pestilent stream of wrong-doing cannot be tolerated. In many ways, it’s both an insult and bad joke that it has been left to the victims to fight for justice through a civil case, when it’s football and society that should be doing this on their behalf.

Here’s some things to consider about the outer layers of the scandal. Celtic admitted/claimed to have held at least three internal investigations into their boys’ club over the years. These have either found nothing, absolved Celtic FC or Celtic FC staff, or remained internal with findings never reported. A cynic would correctly say these were sops to deflect, buy time and allow things to blow over. These would have to had to be discussed and sanctioned by the club with the aim of damage limitation. It is known that senior figures at the club were actively trying to fight fires and the threats of legal action against the earlier newspaper stories look ridiculous with what is now common knowledge. This was undoubtedly part of their chosen strategy for dealing with it. One constant observed since the 90s is that celtic people within the media have been very happy to pick up these excuses for the club to draw a line under things and quash and bury the story. Some of those people began their careers at celtic news, some owe their careers to celtic and others just gladly do what the club wants. I can’t recall celtic fc ever being publicly called out or there ever being any high-profile discussion over their tactics and actions. Surely it merits it? A look at the social media of the usually very vocal of the Scottish press will show that they haven’t even acknowledged the latest developments. Quite incredible.

A key part of Celtics strategy has been attempting to publicly distancing the club from the boys’ club that they had set up and operated. The separate entity line first made its appeared in the late 90s. No doubt Fergus McCann’s new board had a look under the bonnet and thought ‘oh fuck’. Had the scandal unravelled and followed a natural course at that point then it could have (should have) finished the club. Quite the thought, remember the phrase sporting advantage? The press and support were happy to peddle the clubs’ line, despite knowing it would further marginalize the victims and (as we now know) kick the possibility of any sort of closure 30 years down the line. File that under not caring about their victims. This is incredibly slow progress and a lifetime (literally) to wait and fight. Across this expanse of time the phrase scurrilous appeared from an early internal investigation and saw incredible mileage. Even after the convictions started to pile high it was still habitually used by the Scottish press. Radio Clyde and BBC Scotland being as terrible as anyone over the period for their support of Celtic (opposed to the victims) on the issue. The club line and/or silence preferred to any open conversations that they or their football club would find uncomfortable, let alone show Celtic in a bad light. It is a hope that at some point these organisations publicly explain their editorial stances to the victims.

Of course, Celtics network of compliant people is not just limited to the media. Celtic have had a seat at the top table of the SFA and SPFL for a long time. They were certainly prominent enough to influence events before anything became troublesome. Celtics’ influence at Hampden increased further in 2012 as they effectively assumed total control of the games governing bodies. This power was displayed at its most vulgar in the contentious historic abuse report by Martin Henry. Here we have a man of questionable credentials and links to both Celtic and the Catholic Church’ abuse scandals brought it to produce a report which manages to overlook many notorious celtic predators, most of the clubs’ failings, questionable/harmful actions and yet is able to name check Rangers more times than Celtic. It is also stated by victims that Henrys report omitted a lot of valid testimony to suit his narrative. All too predictably, Scottish football clubs and media folk were happy enough with the outcome and seen it as a convenient excuse to drop an uncomfortable subject and move on. I know Rangers had other things on their plate at the time but quite why they accepted their role of silently dignified punchbag in this affair is beyond me. Rangers have their own questions to answer and possible consequences but this shouldn’t shield others. Also in this period, many MSPs used the protracted issue of the report to delay action and avoid comment on the subject – further delaying justice. The whole episode was wrong on so many levels. You would hope that over 300 victims of abuse, 9+ convicted predators, coupled with media manipulation and the corruption within the governing body would be enough to stir fans of other clubs and more than a few isolated MSPs into at least a mild state of concern?

So here we are. Reports this week informed us that (after decades of adamant denial) “Celtic were ready to enter talks” with boys clubs’ victims to prevent the civil case going to court. Oh how noble a gesture for them! In the same week financial reports showed the club to be cash rich and now able to offer substantial pay outs without significantly affecting its general operations. Compare this to the preceding 30 years of using every trick in the book to avoid any hint of responsibility. The concept that justice can be bought without accepting accountability, without a shred of contrition and that it can be administered decades later and only when it suits the now wealthy institution is beyond perverse.

This is just a tiny sample of what’s went on in Scotland and any citizen that cared to look can see a long list of repulsive actions carried out on many fronts by the club and its allies, over and above the abuse. Sadly, the wider public have been conditioned by the relentless media downplay and swathes of the population remain in states of conditioned or wilful ignorance and inaction. That Celtic will probably escape condemnation on a commensurate level from the governing bodies and wider society is itself an injustice. Both Celtic and the SFA should both face disrepute charges over that report – if ever an act undermines trust and public confidence it is that. We can add conflict of interest to the list of reasons for the SFAs inaction.

And all of this in a world and time where sponsors and platforms are quick to drop fallen rock stars and sports stars, it makes you wonder how much longer Celtic FC can possibly dodge the morality bullet on that front too?

Out of Control Disrespect

Disrespect is nothing new in Scottish football. It’s been there before anyone reading this was born and I have no doubts it’ll be there long after we’re all gone. Last week and the passing of Queen Elizabeth II does seem to have ramped things to a new level. Thankfully, there has been condemnation in the UK press it but there also seems to be a lack of discussion beyond that.

Let’s be honest, both sides are fairly entrenched and neither side is passing on tolerance or respect. Some will claim they are, but recent behaviour and events clearly suggest otherwise.

To my eyes there has been a few incidents in recent years that have directly or indirectly led to a ramping up of hostility.

The (deliberate) mishandling of the sectarianism debate is certainly one, although I don’t expect any contributors to concede as much. Dampening down offensive chanting is not a bad thing and if trying to sell our game and widen our horizons then it’s a noble enough cause – for Rangers and other clubs. However, it was never packaged as this. It was a point-scoring exercise that focused predominately on Rangers – since many of the main protagonists have long since shown their hand, I don’t consider this to be up for debate.

But beyond the general disingenuous rottenness of the agenda, it had several lasting by-products. It emboldened celtic fans, and others, that their chants (pro-IRA, sectarian or just plain nasty) were somehow acceptable because their lackeys silence and refusal to call-out or censor those chants let to them to be tacitly accepted (and therefore excused). Meanwhile, it embittered Rangers fans that they were being singled out. Those following things could see what was going on. Those on the outskirts and moderate fans of other clubs bought into it as established platforms like BBC Scotland were selling it (often and everywhere) and they especially bought into Rangers’ being the bad guy and being giving a kicking over it.

This dovetailed nicely with Rangers financial troubles in 2011 and the Indy referendum in 2014. My opinion is the sectarianism debate and events in 2011 (and its fallout) were largely orchestrated, in the press at least, to suit similar purposes to those of the nationalists in 2014. Regardless of cause, the effects were the same; more division, more outrage, more grievance and spite and more disrespect.

One of the many responses thrown at Rangers fans when on the receiving end of abuse is that you deserve it. That’s fine, it’s ok to dislike Rangers. It’s ok to be offended by songs. Ultimately, it’s ok to dislike rivals. But the logic is circular. If your hatred is justified, and you act on that, then perhaps Rangers fans then feel the same in return. An admission of an offensive chanting arms race that’s been going on for over a century would be a start. Trying to dismantle and diffuse that fairly would be a start. Rangers’ fans sing offensive songs, sure, but then so do others. To claim to be especially repelled by the word fenian but not those barking about orange, hun or English bastards or pro-IRA chants makes no sense to me. It’s simply one-eyed and perhaps (probably) the result of years of the media conditioning mentioned above, neatly fitting into existing prejudices (be it tribal, rivalry or politically motivated).

In recent years any bridge of respect between Rangers and celtic has been visibly torched. Previously I could recall regular articles or broadcasts playing on the same-just-different theme. Sometimes forced or contrite but usually well intended. These have largely disappeared, but then so is how we consume our media. I have no doubt celtic hammed it up during the sectarianism debate, knowing that the game was rigged and the media onside. I have no doubt many of the same people helped to direct Rangers troubles in 2011 to some degree. The reasons for this? Money, silverware, access to Champions League. But also, political – culture wars if you will.

The SNP made its rather unsubtle play to take voters from labour and that actively excluded Rangers. MSPs would frequently and frivolously attack Rangers or anything Rangers-related. This brave new strategy would later evolve further at Celtic with many of the club statements no longer acknowledging Rangers by name. No-one stopped to call this out or perhaps think it may not be best for social cohesion. This belligerence manifested itself in other ways too; the banners and tifo seemed to take on a more militant edge, always tribal but often a racial or sectarian undertone. As mentioned before, the IRA chants and paraphernalia was present before, if muted, was now pushed to the fore. Recent accounts of city centre pubs openly playing up-the-RA chants on match days can surely not be claimed as a positive for Scotland?

Perhaps time and distance from the bombings and troubles has allowed a new generation to forget what these actually mean and continue pushing the envelope of offense. Kevin McKenna wrote that Scotlands Irish voting SNP was an expression of their comfort in their Scottish skin. I wonder what the open celebration of the IRA tells us?

Back to that circular logic. How should normal people or fans of other clubs treat this open pro-terror militancy? Justified dislike? Mistrust? Disrespect? And if that had element had always been there, then why would attitudes have been different previously? Context. It would be nice if the media gave it a fraction of the exposure of some other chants. Is it a case of it’s not what you sing but who you sing about?

The deaths of Tommy Burns and Walter Smith also mark milestones along this path. A genuine affection between McCoist, Burns and Smith felt like it symbolised something bigger. Burns passed in 2008 and, with hindsight, this tied in with an escalation in hostilities – that now doesn’t feel like a coincidence. No doubt a knot of mutual respect was lost that day. Replace Burns with the likes of Lennon and the message was always going to change.

Of course, some people didn’t respect Burns and disrespect was shown. Unacceptable chants were aired and some people took it too far or expressed that at the wrong time. Again, these things are cyclical and disrespect would be returned.

Smith, similarly, had a very high standing across the nation. As close to universal respect as Scotland is likely to get. And so another lasting knot of respect unravelled.

Time is a healer but also time allows people to forget. A chant appeared soon enough including Smith and Jimmy Bell. Disrespect and offense the aim and the target was hit. These aren’t really minorities as it was clear many in the joyfully progressive and inclusive theme pubs were indulging in it. Condemnation was offered in some press but none of the analysis really cuts to the thick of it – we are a deeply divided society and it appears to be getting worse. The reason is that division suits some powerful players and no-one appears to have the inclination or platform to resist it or call it out.

I actively dislike my rivals but without some grounding we all lose here. There has to be some symbols of respect and some grown-ups keeping everyone honest. We don’t have that anymore, or they no longer have platforms. We have puppets having their strings pulled. The SFA and SPFL are a joke. The media spins narratives. Even the police has been shown to treat people differently. We have constitutional and racial politics setting rivalries and dictating what people find should offensive.

And this takes us to a place where a moments silence for the Queen is spoiled. In some cases, spoiled is too mild, it was turned into a circus. We are in a place where people are able to forget about the occasion, the environment, their peers, their fellow citizens or the loss of something symbolic to the country where most have spent their life and are instead projecting their own politics, rivalry and spite onto it. You don’t have to agree or care about subject of remembrance but on some level, you have to respect the act of remembrance. Be it club legends, heads of state or those lost in the wars.

This was a very good article around the time of HRHs’ passing in the Scotsman. It may not mean something to you, yet, but it could and it probably meant something, or even a lot, to people you know and care about. I don’t believe every celtic fan wanted to disrespect the Queen or hates the UK. I don’t believe everyone in Hampden didn’t admire or wish to spend a moment to show respect to her. It’s not a surprise that some did not, but it is disappointing that there’s no social filters left and no-one to kept the peace.

One last thought. This is unapologetically through a Rangers’ fan perspective. I want us to admit and own our failings, there’s plenty can be improved and a better Rangers-centric way achieved going forward, but others need to play ball too. In all of the events’ mentioned Rangers have been the focus or placed at the centre of it, but the club has been relatively benign throughout. It didn’t rabble rouse. It didn’t drag things to the gutter. It has took punishment when it had to, publicly criticised and banned its own fans, has been relatively pro-active, kept quiet on many matters when it probably should have but it seldom rocked the boat or poured fuel on flames. Maybe Rangers has been the bad guy in the past, maybe even revelled in that role for a while, but let’s not pretend it’s been that way for many years.

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.

Money over morals – celtic fc

Finally Scotland’s journalists have woken up and started writing on the celtic scandal. It took a while and that is welcome and most dealt with it fairly, if a little restrained in their criticism.

Although I had to laugh (in incredulity not humour) at the stance of certain media figures in recent days. It seemed point-scoring between rivals fans (Rangers fans in particular) was deemed worthy enough to be included in those articles.

We are told that this is very serious subject and everyone must be respectful. And it is and we should. So when one of Scotland’s highest profile, least respected press members finally broke water on it he dealt with this seriousness and showed his respect by burying it in an opinion piece about the Scotland manager and a crap referee. He then further drove home his respect for the subject and the victims by using his article to “point-score” over Rangers fans for daring to have a view on proceedings.

Of note in this article he actually admitted that celtic need to do more and called on them to issue a formal apology. That seems fair and isn’t that exactly what everyone has been saying all along?!

Following the conclusion of the first court case (there’s more ongoing) we have had a legal expert come out and tell celtic fc that they have a case to answer. These lawyers represent many of the victims of the scandal and they are suing the club for damages. Their beliefs and wishes are that celtic accept responsibility.

So in the end it is all pretty simple – celtic are taking the stance they are to avoid paying damages. Cold, uncaring, financial reasons – ultimately that is it. Where’s the respect for the victims in that?

For a sports club money equates to sporting advantage. Celtic are denying and deflecting responsibility to maintain their sporting advantage. Again, it is that simple.

And that, Graham Spiers, is why rival fans are right to question their stance.

Point-scoring and putting the boot in during Rangers tax troubles was common place. There was no end of speculation about how much Rangers owed HMRC. Numbers were crunched, fines and interest were added and accrued. Tabloids plastered sensational figures on their front pages. £80m. £100m. I think they got up to £180m at one point!

Ultimately Rangers were poorly advised and opted to use risky tax schemes to improve their financial efficiency. It back-fired spectacularly and then some. Graham Spiers and plenty of his friends revelled in it. Cheating, financial doping, immoral and worse.

Now isn’t to fair to say celtic have been badly advised? Isn’t it fair to say they buried this early on and doubled down on that? Isn’t it fair to say they have benefited from avoiding justice on this and had the full force of law hit land decades ago then they might not have even been able to survive it? Without irony, they have now got themselves into a position where they are financially and politically strong enough to withstand whatever hits them.

It’s a big story. There’s a huge public interest in it and that’s not been reciprocated in the press. There’s genuine interest as to what when on and what could happen next. There is also rumours abound that celtic are quashing and gagging many stories – I guess bad PR isn’t good for business.

A Penn State parallel…

When the Penn State story broke in 2012 it made global news. It certainly made headlines in Scotland and was covered on all news channels and in all the papers. A summary from lifted from wiki states…

“The Penn State child sex abuse scandal started with Jerry Sandusky, an assistant coach for the Penn State Nittany Lions football team, engaging in sexual abuse of children over a period of at least 15 years. Sandusky had located and groomed victims through his charity organization, The Second Mile. The scandal broke in early November 2011 when Sandusky was indicted on 52 counts of child molestation.

Although Sandusky’s abuse may have begun in the 1970s, he was charged with abuse that occurred between 1994 and 2009. Additionally, three Penn State school officials (school president Graham Spanier, vice president Gary Schultz and athletic director Tim Curley) were charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, failure to report suspected child abuse, and related charges. Shortly after the scandal broke, Spanier resigned. The Penn State Board of Trustees terminated the contracts of Curley and of the longtime head football coach, Joe Paterno.

Of the 52 charges, 4 charges were initially dropped, leaving 48. On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse.Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012, to a minimum of 30 years and a maximum of 60 years in prison.

The Board of Trustees commissioned an independent investigation by former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Louis Freeh and his law firm. The Freeh Report stated that Spanier and Paterno, along with Curley and Schultz, had known about allegations of child abuse on Sandusky’s part as early as 1998, and were complicit in failing to disclose them. Freeh found a “total and consistent disregard by the most senior leaders at Penn State for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims”, which “empowered” Sandusky to continue his abuse.”

It’s shocking stuff. The abuse, the denials and the cover-up. Now anyone in Scotland would admit a lot of it sounds very familiar. The setting, scale, crimes and the behaviour all eerily mirror the celtic fc scandal currently breaking in Scotland. Although most of it is now just being released from the courtroom a lot of the information on celtic fc was available in 2012. A peculiar thing is that I cannot recall the rather obvious parallels being drawn with the celtic fc scandal (not just conjecture but information factually in the public domain from Jim Torbetts original trial in the 90s). In my experience major stories are usually cross-referenced and judged relative to other incidents?

I’m fairly happy in stating an observation (and often do) that the Scottish sports media is ran by and for celtic fc. Almost all celtic stories get presented in the most favourable light and conversely rivals, Rangers, get the opposite treatment. Rangers financial problems and tax case stuff was dissected to a molecular level by the Scottish media – to a degree that was understandable as it was a big story; however, other aspects were dwelt on and negative narratives undoubtedly forced on the public.

So perhaps there’s the reason why our press didn’t draw the obvious link to Penn State and discuss celtics sordid story in full. Because to discuss it, to reason through potential outcomes and laws would be to raise the public awareness to precedents and with it awareness of how other nations sports and media people have dealt with it. It would push responsibility onto the club and force them to own their part in it. It would also compel governing bodies to step up and act. They did not (and still do not) want that. Why? There’s a clue in the initial sanctions handed out to Penn State…

He (NCAA President Mark Emmert) also hinted that he had not ruled out issuing the so-called “death penalty“, which would have forced Penn State to cancel at least the 2012 season.

Shortly after the release of the Freeh report, the NCAA Board gave Emmert the power to take corrective and punitive action relative to Penn State, forgoing the NCAA’s normal investigative protocol. On July 22, 2012, the NCAA announced that it would impose “corrective and punitive” sanctions against both the Penn State football program and the institution as a whole the next morning.

On July 23, 2012, Emmert announced the following sanctions against Penn State, including…

Five years probation.
A four-year postseason ban.
Vacating of all wins from 1998 to 2011–112 wins in all. This had the effect of stripping the Nittany Lions of their shared Big Ten titles in 2005 and 2008. It also removed 111 wins from Paterno’s record, dropping him from first to 12th on the NCAA’s all-time wins list.
A $60 million fine, the proceeds of which were to go toward an endowment for preventing child abuse. According to the NCAA, this was the equivalent of a typical year’s gross revenue from the football program.”

That’s a bit more than a slap on the wrist. And with good reason, it was intended to send a message that this was a very serious subject and that it would not be tolerated in their sport.

Upon challenge some of these sanctions were rescinded. The argument being the NCAA had over-stretched on some points and that Penn States acceptance and implementation of corrective actions was to be viewed more favourably. Even with that, the original message had been clear.

Let the world know, because you have no voice in Scotland…

A memory returns to me from the haze of my younger days. A gathering in a living room. A group of friends and a Nintento. Whilst a mate was at the bathroom I took the opportunity to switch my player settings to low damage. To the amusement of the room and the increasing annoyance of my pal he couldn’t lay a glove on me for the next five rounds. Or rather he could but it just didn’t register. Eventually he twigged on…

It’s not easy when the deck is stacked against you. Knowing you’re right and yet it makes no difference. Knowing that your point is valid and yet it’s lost in the void.

That all sounds a bit melodramatic to be coming from a football fan like myself. Especially one who supports Rangers, a club with resources, support and victories that are the envy of many. And yet that is where we are. It isn’t about football, you see, it’s about something bigger that happens to revolve around football.

Rangers have many enemies. That is undeniable. Envy turns to dislike for many across Scotland. It’s a fact we need to realise and appreciate. That’s not to say we apologise for being Rangers, it’s to say we need to understand how it can and is being used against us.

My opinion, feel free to disagree, the singing debate had a valid enough starting point but it soon got hijacked by those who realised it’s power. A power to divide and conquer. The power of the sectarian argument was crow-barred it until it stuck in the psyche of the nation. Others clubs saw the opportunity to join the bandwagon and jumped on. Of course, the offensive and sectarian songs of others were conveniently over-looked. One face that was present in this campaign as far back as the 1990s – Graham Spiers.

He had the platform and the words to carry his argument. It got the traction and exposure he wanted. Of course, time would expose his as a shallow and agenda-laden argument. Failure to provide any depth and balance beyond finger pointing. Failure to provide solutions. And a tendency to shut down any questions or topics that he would find uncomfortable or just not helpful to his push. Time and time again.

Over the years we’d see Rangers singled out. Given incredible airtime with his buddies at BBC Scotland and discussed ad nauseam to Spiers chosen narrative.

His back catalogue includes some pretty strange entries, none more so than a piece praising and trumpeting Cardinal Keith O’Brien just days before it was exposed that he was a predatory sex pest. Why on earth is a sports journalist even going near that?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/graham-spiers-man-of-faith-left-in-an-impossible-position-1-2480532

I’ll call out the flaming obvious. He’s being directed and paid to do these pieces. A hired gun. A cold, mercenary spin-doctor.

Rangers’ fans will be aware of Spiers’ contribution and opinion into our financial troubles. I don’t need to outline it all but it’s not exaggerating to say he presumed guilt, speculated freely and wildly and pushed for the extreme on every single aspect of the affair. Again, it very much suited the agenda emanating from and benefited one club, celtic. Just like so much of his work before.

Now I’ve no doubt he dislikes Rangers and it’s support and revels in his pariah status. But even that and knowing what he can be like fails to prepare you for his upside-down inside-out stance on the celtic fc child-abuse case.

Spiers tweet

Talk about missing the point. No mention of the crime. No mention of the cover up. No mention of the legitimate anger of people who have a right to ask questions – people from the same city and same streets. People with a right to wonder what went on and how it was allowed, and why it’s still being covered up. Because that what is happening even now. Spiers is clearly part of a planned strategy to close it down and ensure it doesn’t get the investigation. Ensure celtic fc minimise any damage i.e. avoid as much responsibility as possible. That’s how the whole sordid story was allowed to develop in the first place! That and people taking money before responsibility. Let that sink in. The cover up is still actively going on.

Watching the response to this shocking scandal on twitter it is hard to draw any conclusions other the media in Scotland is being directly or indirectly controlled by celtic and that journalists are either complicit or scared to speak out. The deck is stacked against fair hearing and justice.

Going forward it looks like it is going to require hard work and persistence to get fans of all clubs, both in Scotland and beyond, on side and aware of the issue. To increase the volume of the voice calling for an investigation. Politicians are going to have to be forced to talk, condemn it and act – which is staggering given the seriousness and scale of the problem.

Let the world know people. Because you don’t have a voice in Scotland.