maineflyer

If it wasn't for the pathetic obstacle presented by our existing 'official' representative organizations and the jealousies stoking FF, you could almost become quite enthused by the unity that's starting to bridge gaps between most other fan groups. I sense more common purpose than for a long time, if only we could get to the stage where this emerging unity of voice is converted into unity of organisation, to the extent that the club could be 'persuaded' to listen to what us. I've lost every shred of confidence that the current club leadership (whoever that is) will ever AKE on it's detractors.

Something from the Union Bears. Hope the writing style doesn't offend the more precious amongst us but hopefully most will just be interested to see what other groups are thinking...... End the "Dignified" Silence NOW, Rangers Sunday, 10 October 2010 Rangers fans defending the club has been a familiar sight over the years. The RFC hierarchies tried and tested method of approaching attacks on our club with a " dignified silence" do not appear to be coming to an end any time soon, despite the frequency of said attacks progressing at an alarming rate. So yet again, it is left to the fans of the club to fight another battle. While we find this lamentable, it is in no way surprising.* The very people employed (and paid handsomely) to defend us, the support, and the club itself appear to be either content to have our name dragged through the mud, blatantly oblivious to the continuous negative and spiteful publicity we receive, or quite simply do not care enough to grow a set of balls and publicly announce that "Enough is enoughââ?¬Å?. Here are some examples of the "Dignified silence" approach and where it has got us over the years - We will let you, the reader decide if it has been successful or not. "There's probably been more of a closeting of Rangers fans over the years, which is why I think the current generation of them are engaged in a campaign to fight back, as it were. The fans that find a modern way of fighting back have got a lot of right on their side if they feel discriminated against. ââ?¬Å? This was serial Rangers hater Stuart Cosgrove who came out with this little quote, who perhaps had a moment of clarity in-between his usual routine of soiling our clubs name and generally using his position to spread the poisonous BBC agenda. It has to be made clear that this man appeals to the lowest common denominator when it comes to his anti-Rangers beliefs and yet he still came out and confirmed what we suspected for years. We must ask ourselves, why does the mhedia get free reign to print anything they like about our club, its traditions and the fans? They do this because they know they can, without fear of retribution from anyone at Rangers. The club and the people who run it have adopted this ââ?¬Å?dignified silenceââ?¬Å? approach which has seen our reputation been battered from pillar to post over the years, none more so than the fans. "Paul Le Guen, formerly of Rangers but not considered "Rangers' minded" by the more confused denizens of Ibrox could take over at the significantly greener Hibernian." The words printed by The Guardian this weekend, even more so cowardly that they didnââ?¬â?¢t provide the author who wrote such fabricated nonsense. Paul Le Guens failure at Ibrox can be attributed to nothing more than dressing room issues and naivety over the Scottish game; it was*never*about his religion. Le Guen sums up his feelings for the Rangers support below;* ââ?¬Å?The Rangers supporters were brilliant to me. In terms of the support and welcome I received in Glasgow, there can be no excuses. Ibrox is a special place, there is nothing like it. But I made mistakes.ââ?¬Â Does that sound like the words of a man who felt he was discriminated against?*No, we never thought so either... On Saturday, it was announced Allan McGregor would be banned for 1 match following his ââ?¬Å?kick outââ?¬Å? at Aberdeen player Chris Maguire, or to be more precise, at thin air.*Despite even the Aberdeen manager describing it as a nothing incident, the SFA decided to review it by using video evidence after it was "Brought to their attention". We wonder who could have been responsible for that. Liewell and his cronies? The mhedia? Both? Those of us fond of a bet may lump our mortgage on the latter.* It also has to be said that the ban comes at a rather inconvenient time for Rangers. One could be mistaken for believing it is almost manufactured in order for it to be*in the clubs best interest not to appeal it, with the potential outcome of McGregor missing the first Glasgow derby of the year.* It appears to be too much to ask that we have some consistency from the SFA. While we do not wholeheartedly condone McGregors actions, it was far from the only challenge of late worthy of a ban. We have to wonder why the SFA arenââ?¬â?¢t using video evidence after Derek Young stamped on Lee McCulloch, or perhaps Zander Diamond raising his hands to Vladimir Weiss. What about Ian Blacks tackle the following week against Jelavic, a tackle which shortened his season by 3 months. Not to mention an awful challenge by Ross Tokely on Megginson or Anthony Stokes horrendous tackle on Jamie Hammel. None of this were deemed worthy of further examination,**a few because of the ridiculous rule in place that if a player is dealt with at the time no further action can be taken.* One must ask if it is time to play our enemies at their own game and report every single dubious challenge committed in games involving all teams from now until the end of the season. This perhaps means sinking to the level of lesser, classless teams like The bheasts, but what is the alternative? Continue with the stiff upper lip and persevere with whatever decisions are flung at us from here on? We think not. This, however, brings us back to the way our club is run and its decision to remain silent on such issues and attacks. What is stopping the club from highlighting the other tackles? What is stopping the club from asking The Guardian to substantiate the lies they printed about Paul Le Guen?**Whilst I undoubtedly hate **** FC; their PR machine would have went into overdrive if such claims had been made against them.** We need someone at our club who is willing to put their neck on the line and show some testicular fortitude. Someone that would stand up this week and announce all Rangers players are to be withdrawn from all future Scotland fixtures and will continue to be withdrawn until there is parity.* * Sadly, we do not hold our breath. So here we are again, defending the club ourselves! We end with these words in the hope that someone at Rangers may stumble across this;*there is nothing dignified about the way you are running our club. The silence is deafening - end it NOW and fight back against our enemies.* * No Surrender Union Bears

What d'you think this is, the William Haig Loyal?

Hi Craig, What a pair eh? Here's me agreeing with you and you agreeing with me and the two of us still don't know if we've agreed with each other :devil: Anyway, listen up ..... I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! and to prove it I've gone back and made sure I "thanked" you too. :cheers:

Saw the name Number Eight and thought ... Won't bother reading this.

Yes, but would you have been aware that the Guardian had invented the concept of Rangers minded and used it in a false and derogatory way if someone hadn't taken the trouble to draw it to your attention by posting it. I know I wouldn't and for that I'm grateful, even to the extent of not making a Pratt of myself by droning on about the poster's lack of literary prowess.

You're way off the mark with that post mate. I'm not telling you anything about VB or why they got banned by Newsnow. I've no idea whether VB told the truth or the truth alone and I've made no attempt to tell it either way. I don't speak for VB or any other group - if you're genuine about wanting to know the background to this then why not go on the VB website and ask those who might be able to help you. If you're aware of any inaccuracies or legally offensive language (whatever that is) then why not help everyone by saying so instead of just inferring it.

I don't believe the author intended it to be entered in a writing competition. I think he is trying to draw the attention of the average fan to the orchestrated campaign against fans and club. I don't know the guy who wrote this but I believe he's genuinely concerned about the message and has liitle interest in impressing anyone with his literary abilities. I also think these posts are invaluable in helping to break down the inertia of a supporter base that isn't exactly well known for the agility of its opinions ... which is why I offered to share it. Some write, some read, some snipe.

Just wanted to share another article from VB which I thought captured the truth of the situation ..... "Paul Le Guen, formerly of Rangers but not considered "Rangers' minded" by the more confused denizens of Ibrox could take over at the significantly greener Hibernian" I would imagine than this quote from Todayââ?¬â?¢s Guardian newspaper would not register with many of us as the worst attack on our club or support from the media. Annoyed as I was that was also my initial reaction. But then I got to thinking about it as I ruminated it over and over in my mind. There is an inference from the author of that piece which is evident to all of us. But I very much doubt that little ditty was put together for the benefit of Bears. Which made me realise that it was for the benefit of others who would pick up on what is ââ?¬Å?written between the linesââ?¬Â And then it dawned on me. The author didnââ?¬â?¢t need to elaborate or expand on what he had written. The audience had already been primed ....or if this was a field ââ?¬â?? it had already been cultivated...Rangers are a bigoted club and this little ditty only served to re-enforce the message. Of course its lies. But as David Leggat has highlighted lately...no matter how big the lie if it is repeated often enough.....Cue the Goebbels doctrine. Which caused me to further reflect on the extent of the fields which have been cultivated. Now within our support area number of people who dismiss the power of the media...and even our chairman seems to have dismissed their power as irrelevant. Anger over press comments are dismissed as ââ?¬Å?paranoiaââ?¬Â or ââ?¬Å?overreactionââ?¬Â. As I have done previously I would ask these people again if the media is so inconsequential why do our political parties constantly court their favour....why does every large organisation employ media officers...in short why are they so concerned with how they are portrayed in the media if it is so inconsequential ? But the problems we face go way beyond the football field. Letââ?¬â?¢s take our country for a moment. Our first Minister is happy to chide the Tory party that they have no mandate to govern in Scotland due to their singular representative at Holyrood. Yet two thirds of our own country voted for political parties committed to the Union. So what kind of representation do we have in ââ?¬Å?our parliamentââ?¬Â ? Well when the Queen officially opened it 48 of the 129 MSPââ?¬â?¢s boycotted the opening due to Her Majestyââ?¬â?¢s presence. 37% of MSPââ?¬â?¢s would appear to be republican in their beliefs. But of greater concern is the Sunday Herald poll of several years ago where 91%....yes 91% ( its not a typo error)...stated that the Catholic Church had an unhealthy influence in Holyrood. This is a church which represents only 16% of our countryââ?¬â?¢s population. The fields have been cultivated. There are those within our country who would refute our right to be both British and Scottish. For them its either or. They donââ?¬â?¢t necessarily need to be republican in nature, though often they are, anti-English xenophobia is a common trait. Bill Leckie, so often a critic of the Rangers support, is particularly venomous with his anti-English sentiment via his sports section. In our own country there is a misconception that hatred of the English is different from the racism or bigotry which the Scottish media love to throw as an accusation. There is none so blind as those who cannot see. The fields have been cultivated. Only the week before last someone had the ââ?¬Å?temerityââ?¬Â to criticise the Tartan Army for booing the Lichenstein National Anthem. The excuse offered was that it was the same tune as God Save the Queen. Apparently that excuse served as some kind of justification. The fields have been cultivated. Rangers Football Club parade the Union Jack at the start of every game. Our fans carry that symbol as a badge of honour. Club and supporters group break world records with card displays honouring that flag and all it stands for. Our Afghan heroes are paraded at Ibrox to standing ovations. We impeccably observe minute silences in the memory of Britainââ?¬â?¢s fallen. What does it merit from our press...? ââ?¬Å?Ibrox resembled a Nuremeberg Rallyââ?¬Â The fields have been cultivated. There is a book which suggests ââ?¬Å?As you sow, so shall you reapââ?¬Â. Perhaps its time we turned our attention to those cultivated fields and to just what we were sowing

What about the non ST supporters which would be a much larger group? Surely they must get their own representative organisation? Or the largest group of all, the Fans Against Representative Twattery.

I saw that on Sky. These people know how to send a message, banning him while on national team service. You can't ignore McGregor's guilt but neither can you quite believe this isn't orchestrated for effect. Get ready to see McGregor replaced in goal against Spain and an inference that his 'attitude' isn't right.

Uber bear eh? I thought those only existed on FF.

I've never really understood the petty intolerance about using the name "Glasgow" Rangers. Does it really make us any less than we are? I'm prepared to be a purist when it matters but you can't help thinking this pedantic nonsense is really just about being holier-than-thou.

The Rangers hating filth have permeated every other facet of Scottish life, why would the SFA be any different.

Funny, I thought my post was about the dirge-like qualities of a song that was adopted simply because it pandered to the chip-on-the-shoulder mentality of a weak and aimless society. I think we've made progress since then but I still feel the song is a disgracefully cheap choice to represent an ancient and complex nation like the Scots. Maybe your uncle has different tastes, good luck to him, but to claim he is somehow more of a Scot because he finds it difficult to control the hair on the back of his neck is, frankly, childlike. It's disappointing to hear you say forget about the Jacobite nonsense and then infer that anyone who does so is anti-Scottish, preferring instead to call themselves English? That's the kind of fatuous revisionism pedalled by people who choose to believe Charlie was a Scot or that endless romantic tosh is a fair substitute for reality. Ignorance may be bliss for some but it's a poor foundation from which to lead a debate. The truth is that you're no more of a Scot because of what happens round the back of your (or your uncle's) neck and I'm no less of one because of seeing through the claptrap of political fiction. Personally, I'll never be English, nor would I want to be. My reality (and yours presumably) is that we're Scottish and British in equal measure. That suits me like the skin I'm in. It's not anti-Scottish to object to the truth about your country being hijacked by ignorance and poor taste.

After watching that shambles in the Czech Republic I can definitely say it wasn't worth giving up a weekend's football for. Wonder who the next manager will be? Arf Arf

I'm not sure I believe a word of this but if it is true then the obvious response would be for McGregor to award himself a few extra rest days during the season, during which he might usefully try to grow up a little.

Wonderful post, thanks.

By way of clarification ... I saw the VB articles that attracted a flood of complaints from the MOPES and I would describe them more accurately as critical rather than offensive. I think we all know that where sellick and their catholic/oirish sponsors are concerned, offensiveness is to be defined exclusively by them alone. They complained so vociferously about VB simply because VB was so effective at projecting the truth into their nest of lies.

Since the whining but highly mobilized filth raised enough ruckus to have VB banned from Newsnow I thought it was worth sharing this topical article....... Responsible Journalism - What is that you may say? Written by Pro Patria, Vanguardbears Thursday, 07 October 2010 Well I would call it reporting facts and stating them in print so that there is no ambiguity or confusion. That the reader can immediately see for themselves what the story is about and the outcome or end result of said story based on the facts. Sadly the phrase ââ?¬Å?Responsible Journalismââ?¬Â cannot be applied to that many Media Outlets. The media outlet I am referring to is the Aberdeen Press and Journal who have again shown themselves to be of integrity, professionalism and worthy of the accolade ââ?¬Å?Responsible Journalistsââ?¬Â. You are now asking yourself where is this coming from and where is it leading and the answer is simple. Well as most of you will know by now certain Aberdeen Footballers namely Michael Paton and Zander Diamond thought it would be hilarious to engage in anti Protestant bigotry on their facebook websites. Indulging in such eloquent phrases as FTQ and wanting to run over Protestants with the Popemobile. Not the brightest are these two when their comments were in the public domain for all to see. However I digress from the main topic which is the reporting of their actions. This newspaper saw fit to run with the story and describe it as it asââ?¬Â¦ ââ?¬Å?Dons stars under fire over ââ?¬Ë?sectarianââ?¬â?¢ internet postsââ?¬Â. (Pair left facebook comments insulting Protestants on day of popeââ?¬â?¢s visit) This is the same Press and Journal who were not afraid of the West of Scotland influence when breaking the story about John Hartson and Stephen Pearson singing in the now infamous ââ?¬Å?Iraokeââ?¬Â video taken at an Official Celtic FC Function over in the Republic of Ireland. So why is it that this very simple story has been twisted slightly to give the West of Scotland readers a vaguer take on proceedings? The Scottish Sun headline reads: ââ?¬Å?Dons Pair Rapped on Pope Jibesââ?¬Â. And the article then starts off with this very odd choice of phrase:-* "TWO Aberdeen stars have been carpeted after posting vile comments about the Pope on the internet". Was the Pope the focus of their bigotry? Was the Pope the recipient of their Sectarianism? No he wasnââ?¬â?¢tââ?¬Â¦.the Queen and the Protestants in Scotland were the targets of their bile. So the question you have to ask the Sun is why do they go with such a misleading headline and why do they not have the headline ââ?¬Å?Dons Pair Rapped on Anti Protestant Jibesââ?¬Â (or something similar). Are they trying to get the subliminal message across to the casual reader who may glance at the headline and think ââ?¬Å?Oh here we go another anti catholic or anti Pope jibeââ?¬Â We then move on to the Daily Record headline which unsurprisingly states:- "Aberdeen stars Zander Diamond & Michael Paton in hot water over offensive Facebook remarks during Pope's visit to Scotland". Again this leads us to think that the Pope is the focal point and probable target of their abuse. One story but 3 very different slants put on it. Two from the West of Scotland and from organisations with previous and one from Aberdeen who have the moral fibre to call it as it is. So how can the Sun and the Record use the Pope in their headline when the comments were directed towards the Queen and Protestants? Why can the Press and Journal use the factually correct headline but these two cannot? Questions, questions but sadly few answers. Suffice to say that the organisations in question are not daft and they know that they have no choice but to print this story. Sadly they deliberately play with the the title to give it a softer and more misleading angle. It is shameful but utterly predictable behaviour from two organisations who are no friends of the Rangers or the Protestant religion. Well done the Press and Journal for yet again showing up the clear bias that exists in the West of Scotland media.

If the cap fits ......

Strangely, it also appears if you say nothing at all then you might actually have spoken loudest. It's probably not this bizarre at the centre of the galaxy.

And just look at the people international football is helping to keep their noses in the public trough. Low grade muppets who wouldn't be out of place running the RST.

I'm surprised by none of this. The only thing I find hard to take are Rangers fans still pretending it's a level playing field out there and that anyone is watching or is interested in our attempts to act reasonably with respect to songs, etc .... Or pursuing the mythical "Rangers Way" of subdued (read invisible) response ... and that anything approaching indignation or (whisper it) action must be labelled "tim behaviour" or "paranoia". Why don't we all just get "victim" tattooed on our forheads.

I think you've lost the path altogether now and lapsed entirely into the metaphysical