The Real PapaBear

I think your first point is semantics tbh - the definition of unexpected is not expected.

 

I disagree with your second point that we are to blame for others prejudices - I could make any analogue of religious or racial bigotry where we'd have to prove that we don't conform to a derogatory stereotype, surely that isn't what's right.

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.

I didnt for a minute think those were your views - hence why I said "It appears" rather "You appear".

 

Nonetheless its mentalist.

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?

I never stated that you said we should be abused - but instead that we should expect to be abused. Which is what it appeared you suggested.

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.

Further your second paragraph above puts the blame of others bigotry and hypocrisy in our own court ('no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush').

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.

I don't believe that pandering to extremists helps anyone, and I don't think its acceptable to tar hundreds of thousands of people - that is discrimination.

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

1. It appears to makes an assumption that all members of the Rangers community' date=' particularly the more high profile members of that community, are aligned with British Nationalism/Loyalism/Reacionary Politics & hatred of the SNP etc and thus unprovoked abuse should come as no surprise ie almost akin to guilty by association.

 

2. It completely disregards the diverse nature of our support in terms of political allegiance - which was well illustrated in the Book Born Under a Union Flag.[/quote']

 

And you make the mistake of assuming that these are my views. For clarification, I have highlighted the part of teh text that you appear to have overlooked:

 

"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 ..."

1. There was no dig - just a valid and necessary pointing out of inconsistency.

 

2. I wasn't talking about them per se but the people discussed in the original post and this thread (not all of which I've read right enough). Would you agree O'Hara and the fella dismissing RFC's proud history are equally moronic. Yet they weren't suspended? I guess some members are dispensable....

 

3. I've no time to send on daft folk's childish tweets that are easily ignored. A bit like naughty songs at football matches that we waste millions of pounds on via flawed SNP legislation on what I feel is an exaggerated issue. Again, this is where Professor Bruce's comments are valid taking us back to the original post again.

 

4. My Twitter account and/or this website has no (or at least the bare minimum) political allegiances so, while I may not be surprised at people's immediate prejudice therein, I am disappointed by it no matter where it originates. Moreso when it's echoed and excused by our own fans.

 

5. Now, more and more people may well be voting SNP and/or favouring independence. That's fine and that's why democracy is our system of choice. However, that doesn't answer the points I made about the SNP's lack of consistency in some matters. Perhaps you should stand as a candidate given your ability to avoid rebutting in full?

 

6. Again, I've no specific gripe against the SNP and have tried my best to avoid the political intrigue of late on the forum, but it's a shame political allegiance seems to be conflating itself more with football. That reflects badly on all of us and it's not going to end well IMHO.

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.

Would it be an Oliver Twist moment to suggest all of it ?

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

The way you frame the question in the last paragraph makes it appear that you think that being a Rangers Supporter publicly means that you should expect abuse from supporters of political parties - I don't think that is acceptable. The demonisation of our support is something that I think we need to deal 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.

Good Lord RPB - that is just mentalist - something of a quantum leap of extraordinary proportions.

which part do you disagree with?

No, the party is linking itself with these sentiments by allowing its members to share them without penalty.

 

I certainly don't base my politics on my football team but, stupid or not, many will and even if you don't, it's human nature to interact more with those whose community values you share. Hence, if you're asking me to vote for someone who calls me a hun and/or questions the legal status of my football club whilst their party excuses such behaviour, I'll find that distasteful no matter their politics. It's not as if any of the parties are hugely different from the other nowadays anyway when we examine their polices - independence (Union or EU membership) aside.

 

Now, I won't excuse any Rangers fan who acts badly but neither will I examine Rangers fans exclusively when we talk about offensive behaviour. With that in mind, I'm surprised you don't agree the SNP members highlighted have dragged the name of the SNP through the mud with their 'moronic and obnoxious' actions. It's a shame some can't acknowledge that but perhaps such people are too stupid to debate without taking their political party allegiance into account?

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?

Context is everything when it comes to the issue and it would be very difficult to prove the individual's intentions no matter when he used the term.

 

However, I certainly wouldn't be voting for the person and I doubt many other bears in the area will either. It's a shame the SNP didn't acknowledge this in their reply to the original article and it should be a source of concern that the party is regularly being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments. Fair enough, their politicians are entitled to their personal opinions on anything they like but these stories will cost them votes - even if their strongest supporters may not be prepared to concede the point.

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.

If for example we take the crime of the rape of a man by another - that was not formally recognised under the old Sexual Offences Act' date=' however it is with the passing of the Sexual Offences (Scotand) Act 2009. Therefore it would be competent for an individual to be tried for a historic offence of this nature, despite the relevant legislation not being in existence at the time of the crime. That is the point I was making to you. However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted - its the utter hypocrisy of the SNP position over this matter. I think the de-selection of O'Hara woud have sent out a message which was consistent with the legislation they are determined to enforce.

 

Furthermore I would disagree with you completely regarding Fiscals - to suggest that they are not interpreting the law, merely prosecuting on instruction is complete nonsense given the vagueness of the legislation itself. That vagueness within the legislation is one of the main areas of criticism. At some point, either the Fiscal's service themselves or the Police, who act as agents obo of the Fiscal, have interpreted that the term "hun" falls within the scope of this legislation - hence the subsequent prosecutions.

 

This is further backed up by 26th Of Foot's recent suggestions that Mullholland has instructed both the PF's service and the Police, that he will no longer entertain prosecutions for use of the term. I dont think any of us are in any doubt whatsoever what the entailment of this instruction will be with regard to future crime pattern analysis relating to Sectarian Offences.

 

Do you honestly believe that the term "hun" is just a collective name for Rangers supporters and is in no way sectarian or attempt to de-humanise our support ?[/quote']

 

Again, you fail to address the point that a sexual offense was still illegal prior to the redefinition of it.

Rape of a man has always been illegal and was simply prosecuted under a different law prior to the new Act.

 

O'Hara's comments were not illegal when he made them - and refusing to punish someone retrospectively is not hypocricy, it's natural justice.

 

Or should we all now be done for drink driving because we will all have driven in the past above the current limit?

 

With regard to Fiscals, I think you misunderstand what they do. They have a degree of discretion on whether to prosecute only; they are not law lords and they do not and may not interpret the law. Thus, being unable to interpret the law they cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

As to the term 'hun' it is different things according to who is using it. It can be sectarian, for example when used by a rabid Tim; it can simply be a footballing insult, for example when used by my Protestant, Hearts-supporting son in law or my Protestant, Motherwell-supporting ex-business partner or by decent Tims.

He nicked my summer football and league reconstruction.

A great idea has many fathers

I agree with 1. & 2., but I would not have the US Collegiate system as I believe it leaves itself open to brown envelope-type corruption. Instead I would rather have the NHL type of progression.

This is where the kids play in amateur/junior leagues, then progress into Major Junior leagues. By this time they are around 17/18. They are then available to the professional clubs via the annual draft system.

The best thing about this draft system is that of the 30 teams in the NHL, the worst team in the standings gets first pick in the next season's draft. In this way after a few years there tends to be parity between the clubs, because each year's phenoms are spread around. In this way you tend to break up the grip of the dominant teams.

It doesn't always work out in real life the way it should in theory because teams can trade draft picks etc. but another balancing feature is that clubs have a maximum cap space. This means that all teams are only allowed a certain amount of money that they can pay out in salary, and that cap limit is the same for all teams irrespective of how big their market is.

In this way you tend to see a runaway team in one year being broken up in the next year or two because they can't legally keep all the superstars in the league because each superstar is paid too much.

Those players not picked up in the draft pick can play in non-league hockey and can at a later date be picked up by a team as a non-draft pick ( usually these are the late developers ) but are still subject to the overall team-cap limit.

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

RPB, do you ever feel that you are being allowed just enough rope?

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.

On the subject of the SNP...anyone else find it odd that all the other parties during the referendum told us we are 'better together' and now that Scotland (according to polls) are voting for their preference in a democratic UK vote are painting Scots as 'dangerous' folk?

 

Better together Scotland as long as you shut your effin mouth. That's not democratic.

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.

It was that Labour bloke McConnell...never ever vote Labour again.

oh, ok. You've convinced me.

Dearie me RPB - you are getting yourself in something of a pickle over this. Its not that the original conduct was" legal"' date=' just that that the legislation which deals with such conduct was passed after the event.[/quote']

 

Au contraire. Far from being in a pickle, I would seem to have identified the weakness and self-contradictory nature of your argument.

 

You suggested that my objection to retrospective punishment for a crime which did not exist at the time of the offense was 'dangerous' because "many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed." (I presume you omitted the words "prosecutions of" by mistake after "successful"?).

 

Yet, in your next post you admit that the sexual offenses were also illegal at the time they were committed. Illegal then; illegal now.

The same is NOT true of O'hara's use of 'hun'. At the time he used the term, 4 years before the law changed, it was perfectly legal to do so.

 

Thus your comparison of the term hun with sex crimes is (how can I put this?), somewhat misplaced, shalll we say?

 

I'll ask again; which legislation dealing with sexual abuse was passed after the event and what effect did this legislation have on the legality of the original abuse? And I'll add a rider; In what way is this retrospective legislation, which you yourself say had no bearing on the legality of the conduct, comparable to the passing of the SNP bill which made illegal conduct which hithertofore had been legal?

 

 

Do you think NBM are being "disingenuous" ?

 

http://nilbymouth.org/resources/history/

 

Or the Fiscal's who successfully sought and secured prosecutions for this term ?

 

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.

I'd rather discuss Rangers matters in 'Rangers Chat' rather than politics, but since this is what we have I'd like to moan about the buggers in government that stopped me smoking a fag in the pub and in the airport.

 

In fairness a lot of pubs accommodated the smoker by creating covered smoking areas for them, but some don't which means folk walking past as you puff away outside give you a sidestep and a dirty look.

 

Should be in the lounge this.

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

Thats a dangerous logic to offer as some kind of defence for his action RPB. Given that many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed.

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.

I think most people, irrespective of party politics would see the utter hypocrisy of the SNP's action, or lack thereof, with regrad to O'Hara.

 

Furthermore, despite the presence of the relevant legislation, I dont recall its absence preventing Donald Finlay being hounded and lambasted as a "bigot"

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.

Och, c'mon RPB, you understand alright. Did the SNP not introduce the Objectionable Behaviour Act? So, who's government is worse, or at least as bad as each other , the UK government or the SNP government in Holyrood?

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.

 

But as if the sight of these intergalactic keyboard warriors was not bad enough' date=' last week saw a further unedifying dimension to this battle – a blanket bombing of hypocrisy and double standards. The revelation that SNP Candidate for Argyll and Bute, Brendan O’Hara had used hate speech on a message board to describe Rangers supporters was accompanied, of course, by the almost mandatory “apology”. Amazing how remorseful such individuals are when they are exposed. I’m sure Scott Lamont was equally remorseful, but that didn’t stop him receiving a 4 month jail sentence for singing the Billy Boys. So much for the European right of “equality before the law” Orwell it seems was correct – “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others”

 

But the actions of the prospective candidate for Argyll and Bute, pale into insignificance when one examines the actions of the political party he represents. A party who commandeered a bulldozer to drive their much criticised anti-sectarian legislation through Holyrood, continue to endorse a candidate who engages in the type of hate speech they sought to criminalise. If Carlsberg did hypocrisy they would probably be a poor second to the SNP. (I only use the word “probably” to retain the sentiment of the original Carlsberg advert)

[/quote']

 

What you forget to mention is that he used the term some 4 years before the law was introduced, so your use of the phrase "who engages in hate speech" is at best temporally incorrect and slightly hysterical. You further suggest that he is being allowed to get off because he's an SNP member, whereas he's being treated just like any other person would be- or do you expect the SNP to expel a person for something that was perfectly legal at the time they did it?

 

I'm not suggesting the SNP is perfect, but to compare them to the unionist masters of lies, hypocricy, fear-mongering and hatred is to take a trip down the rabbit hole.

The SNP's law has resulted in someone for being fined for being anti-IRA, while their supporters cheer a pro-IRA band walking past the cenotaph playing "Go home, British soldiers." The morality of the country is truly worrying.

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

If the SNP win a huge majority in Scotland, where would you expect your above description of the UK government adapted to the Scottish government to change?

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

One-party State; controlled state media; thought crime.

 

Sound familiar?

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.