Musical Chairs and Sporting Integrity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100 Inconvenient Voices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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 29^th 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?

Scoring Political Points – Part 2

Sometimes the divide and conquer tactics are so subtle that the only clue is when you realise who’s doing the chipping.

You then look more closely at them and start to recognise other aspects of their behaviour. Social media has given us an insight to this. Of course, the PR mud-slinging exercise hits reverse for their chosen interests. Positives are magnified and amplified before being spoon-fed to the public. And of course negatives are over-looked, dismissed or ignored.

On social media we have seen the preening imbecile Humza Yousaf respond to tweets about internet connections. We have seen Nicola Sturgeon stand over homeless people in her high heels in city alleyways and pretend she wants to be there. What is noticeable is the absence of any comment or condemnation on the large scale child abuse that occurred at celtic football club (n.b. “separate and distinct” is celtic fcs legal defence at this moment in time and not the ultimate factual status of the matter).

It is fair to weight stories by their content; including significance, severity, scale and public interest. This can then be trended into a media response i.e. how much coverage it should get, how many column inches, headlines, debates etc. And how long it should hold the headlines before dropping off and naturally being replaced by other stories.

In my opinion the Rangers tax case got a ridiculous amount of coverage for the weight of the story. For me, the why and how behind that is fairly straight-forward – point-scoring by rivals with a significant amount of lasting, damaging PR for Rangers FC.

As contrast the celtic fc child abuse scandal is getting well below its merited coverage. Again, the why and how is fairly straight-forward. Scoring points for celtic by limiting its exposure.

I’ll give an example of what the lack of coverage means in real terms. Football has a fair number of online fanatics and most stories and permutations will be known to these guys; but ultimately this represents a minority of the football going and following public. The rest of football has an interest but their awareness is limited to exposure from the media, newspapers, radio and chats based on that content. Like the fanatics these groups are fairly set in their ways although probably, through naivety, more open to suggestion through content.

Then there’s the rest of the population. A far bigger number and ultimately if you can influence this then you gain momentum to drive home your point.

An in-law of mine is a 60 year old women who works in a supermarket. She was aware of the Rangers tax case and knew enough about it to discuss it with me. She got her info from newspaper headlines and local radio reports. Recently I asked her opinion on the celtic child abuse cases and she hadn’t even heard about it. Take a minute to think about this. Now this is a very small sample but it points to a key point here, a big and serious story is being kept from the public. And with that most of the general public are oblivious to the celtic scandal.

It is being covered up. Why? Because it is known that once celtics’ crimes hit the public consciousness then it will be bad PR that will damage them. Fair and just exposure will undermine their support and will turn future generations off following them.

The SNP are currently courting the celtic vote and are therefore dutifully scratching backs over this.

Well, hopefully the same applies to the SNP once its complicity is exposed. Many would consider these actions to be crimes in themselves. Scoring points by keeping it quiet. To protect a football business over justice for victims. I’m sure the general public would be pretty angry if they realised the half of it.

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.