The Real PapaBear

On the first point, it's really not semantics. (well, it is in the true meaning of the term, which is unfortunately not how it is widely used). for example, If I get a Green party leaflet, or a UKIP leaflet through my door, it's not unexpected. However, given the size of both of those parties where i live, I'm not expecting them. On the second, if you deny that we are at least partly responsible, then we ain't never gonna get nowhere.

you keep saying that, but you haven't yet said with what it is you disagree. Are you claiming that we are not seen in this light by much of the rest of Scottish society?

Bear with me here, because this may seem like hir splitting but it's really not. I didn't say that I expected we should be abused, but rather that being abused should not be unexpected. There is actually a fair difference. Well, to a large degree we are the authors of our own misfortune by the great bulk of us remaining silent when the right wingers and loyalists speak in our name. Well said. Couldn't agree more.

1. you see an inconsistency in approaching a party political debate from a party political standpoint whilst not allowing one's choice of sports team to influence one's political choice? Ehhm. OK. 2. Comments about Rangers being deceased or calling us huns in a football sense are stupid, but part of football 'banter' and in no way as moronic as getting involved in trying to drown out a political opponent, even though much of what Murphy was spouting was lies and fear mongering. Every time that lying toe rag opens his mouth the SNP vote increases, so the moronic part of their actions was getting involved in the first place. The only people listening to Murphy were the press and his collection of schoolkids that he carries around with him; Until the brians trust arrived there was nobody else there. The entire thing was a set up designed to engender sympathy for Murphy and create an anti-nationalist backlash in his own constituency, where he is facing defeat. Otherwise, why would Murphy's campaign manager have been the one to alert the rent-a-goons to the location of his speech? 3. If you're going to ignore the childish posts, fine - but don't then accuse the SNP of doing nothing about them. 4. Perhaps it would help if you thought about the difference between 'understand' and 'excuse'. I don't excuse people who abuse others on twitter, or elsewhere for that matter, but I understand why they do it. 5. I have, about half a dozen times now, answered the accusations of what you and others call SNP inconsistency. If you refuse to read those, then there's nothing more I can do. 6. Agree entirely. And yet it is only happening among Rangers fans. AFAIK no other group of fans is allowing their sporting allegience to inform their political choice.

Then perhaps you would clarify what it is you disagree with?

it really does not mean that at all. For heaven's sake, I've been a Rangers supporter for longer than most on here and an SNP supporter for almost all of my adult life - are you saying I think I should be abused by fellow SNP members? The fact is that the vocal element of the Rangers support, the ones chanting about sticking independence up your arse, hating alex salmond or throwing bottles in George Square and waving fascist and loyalist flags get up the noses of the vast majority of the wider non-Rangers aligned population. Until we recogise that, and unless those of us of a different political mind set make our voices heard then it can be no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush.

which part do you disagree with?

I'll ignore the dig as being infra dig. If you're talking about the two numpties who shouted down Murphy in Glasgow their actions were moronic and obnoxious, mirroring as they did the actions of Murphy himself. The two have been widely condemned on SNP forums and, rightly, suspended from the party for bringing its nae into disrepute. If you're talking about individuals who send you sectarian or other abuse, send their details to SNP headquarters. You'll find that the party has no tolerance for those who beak the law and, if they are members and if there is a case, they will be suspended pending investigation. Oh, that any of the unionist parties were half as consistent. If, however, you're talking about any of the 1.5 million Scots who voted for indpendence and who are not SNP members, are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics and which is vocal in its detestation for, in no particular order, Alex salmond, the SNP, Scotland and independence, are subject to abuse yourself?

The party is being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments by a section of the Rangers support; by nobody else. I doubt whether these stories will cost any votes, since people stupid enough to vote politically based on their footballing allegience wouldn't have been voting SNP anyway. What is certainly true is that the wider SNP membership, indeed wider Scottish society, of all clubs and none, are becoming increasingly put off by the behaviour of those moronic Rangers fans who align themselves with British nationalism, Unionism and in some cases Fascist causes, drape themselves in union flags, behave like thugs and drag the name of the club through the mud with their obnoxious behaviour.

A great idea has many fathers

fair enough. I wasn't aware of the NHL system - sounds good and one that could be used here.

Oh, do please expand. Tell me how Procurators Fiscal interpret the law - and please bear in mind that deciding whether to prosecute is not interpreting the law.

According to the Tories, LibDems and their chums in the English media, if the Scottish people vote for the SNP in large numbers it will be "holding the rest of us to ransom", cause a "democratic legitimacy issue", have "a massive credibility problem", "Ajockalypse Now" and " a chilling prospect". So there you have it guys; Looks like you might think you're British, but it seems they don't.

oh, ok. You've convinced me.

Interesting to see you use NBM as a support for your argument. Who'd have thought? I think NBM have an interest in seeing sectarianism under every rock; it's what they do; it's their raison d'etre. The more of it they can identify, the more necessary they are as an organisation. Call me cynical. Fiscals were follow the law; they don't interpret it and thus cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

The Scottish Govt leading the way again with a law that all right minded people will support.

Could you offer an example of these sexual offenses which were legal but which are now illegal? I would suggest that the only dangerous thing here is comparing sexual abuse with derogatory footballing banter' date=' as misusing comparisons like that only serves to debase the currency. You would think that because of your hatred of the SNP. I would disagree that just about anyone outside the poisonously claustrophobic and tiny world of SNP-hating Rangers supporters would find hypocritical the decision not to suspend someone for something which wasn't an offense when it happened. I think most people, irrespective of party politics, would understand that the term 'hun' was and continues to be widely used by footbal fans of all teams to describe us, the fans, and Rangers, the club In the majority of cases in which the term is/was used sectarianism is not the motivating factor. Where Mr O'Hara was being sectarian when he used the term is something only he knows. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, since the only truly sectarian Celtic fans I have ever met have all been supporters of the unionist Labour party, which they tend to regard as 'theirs'. There is no place in the SNP for sectarianism or bigotry; something which cannot be said for either of the two main unionist parties and particularly the closet fascists of UKIP. As for Findlay, there is no equivalence between the term 'hun' and the 'F' word, the use of which is always sectarian. To pretend they are equivalent terms is, at best, disingenuous. In a previous thread I suggested that we had all used the F word at some point in our lives and asked Frankie who was calling for O'Hara's head (or it may have been Zappa - I forget which, since these admins all look the same to me), given this to be true, whether he would agree that his use of the term in years gone by made him unfit to be an admin of a site which represents Rangers and whose rules prohibit sectarianism. I would ask the same question of you; if you have used the F word, doesn't that preclude you from writing blogs about Rangers? After all, if he and you are both asking for retrospective punishment for something which wasn't an offense when it was committed, shouldn't you apply the same standards to yourself?

1. Summer football. 2. two top tiers of 14 teams each; tiers 3 and 4 regional. The bottom 4 of tier 1 and the top 4 of tier 2 split to form a middle tier after 30 games. These 8 teams play for promotion/relegation. The remaining 10 in the top tier play for title/europe and 1 automatic relegation and one play off place. 3. 2 or 3 national football academies, where kids are given the best coaching with no pressure from the clubs. The kids are then drafted into the clubs, following the US collegiate system.

I did not understand your question because it made no sense - I just didn't want to start our discussion by pointing that out. As to the nub of your question, there can be no comparison between the anti-democratic laws passed by Westminster and the Objectionable Behaviour Act. In order to break the law in Scotland, you actually do have to do something. Under UK anti-terrorism laws you can be locked up practically on a whim. The parliament in Westminster is largely discredited, outdated and corrupt - none of which adjectives apply to the Scottish Parliament.

As is your portrayal of events. That was not an SNP event; it was organised by Tommy Sheridan.

Forgive me, I don't understand your question; what do you mean by the "UK Gov adapted to the Scottish Gov"?

UK 2015 - where people are sent to prison for simply owning material the state doesn't like and where the media is nothing more than an arm of the state and controlled by the those who control the state. Next question.