The Real PapaBear

As you point out in every single post you make. Change the record.

What is the point of posts like this? Seriously? Mccall has been in charge for only two games, one of which took place just after he arrived and the second of which saw a marked increase in performance and attitude, even though the usual suspects gifted goals at the back. He's changing the team as much as he can by playing the youngsters Walsh and Murdoch, bringing in Templeton and Shiels and, most importantly, reacting quickly when things go wrong. Yes we drew last night but ALL of that responsibility lies with the midfield and defense not with McCall. Instead of making pointless attacks on him after less than one week in charge, why not concentrate on the immediate and refeshing changes he has brought with him?

"would have been" - Agreed. But as Frankie says, it's done now. Let's move on.

you'll be waiting a while, then. The new board will be keeping their heads down and avoiding any conflict for some time yet. One can only hope that notes have been taken however and that a cold dish will be served when the time is right.

I suspect -although we'll have to wait to hear what CG says - that CG has resigned because he had become the story and threatened to derail whatever feel-good momentium was being generated. A case can also be made (although it's not one I agree with) that his position as a fan rep on the board had become untenable since he tweeted something deeply offensive to many Rangers fans. I suspect it was a mutual decision, but it has been badly mishandled.

He should be thanking the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. Again.

It seems strange to see you as a defender of all things Islamic all of a sudden Rab. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it was Chris Graham who was involved, would it? I think the most shocking thing about this whole episode was not the 'offensive' tweet, but the fact that there are those amongst us who would turn on one of our own and throw him under the bus for reasons of personal vendetta or dislike, rather than standing behind him in the face of a mhedia attack.

That's not what you said, though - which was "McCall is not very good at getting an underdog to compete." Whether any other SPL manager is good enough for Rangers is not the issue. McCall had one of the smallest and poorest clubs in the SPL yet still managed to get them to compete to such an extent that they did they best they possibly could have each of the seasons he was in charge - and by the way 58 victories from 114 games is a win record of over 50%

Your argument would seem to be that this was not "allowable offensiveness" because his tweet could offend people - in which case, no offense is ever allowed and you find yourself on the same side as Choudary. It would further seem that you fail to appreciate the difference between deliberately offending people and people being offended by an attack on their belief system. There is a world of difference between hurling homophobic, sexist, racist or sectarian abuse at someone as an expression of one's own bigotry and intellectual deficiency, and of attacking a set of ideas and a philosophy. The other points I would pick you up on are, first your assumption that I would think his retweeting "may not have been the wisest thing to do" - your words, not mine - and second, your chronology; his actions took place two months ago and the fact that they have been resurrected now "at a time when that is the last thing we need" is not the doing of CG and not something for which he can be held responsible. As to why he hasn't apologised yet, I can sympathise with a view that he has nothing to apologise for, if that's the view he takes. Equally, if he were to express regret for any unintended offense caused, that would be fine, too.

equally, look at areas of Glasgow, edinburgh and Dundee where there are huge social problems related to the white 'christian' community. To deny that would be absurd. The problems people face in those areas are problems of poverty and social mobility, not of religion. If you are going to make sweeping statements such as "Musilm leaders not happy ?? what are they ever happy about when it comes to our country and our way of doing things ??!!" you really should have some evidence to back them up. Except you can't have, because there is none. It would seem that your antipathy towards 'Muslims' is based on biased, loaded reporting by the MSM and not personal experience since we don't have problems with large amounts of Muslim immigrants in Scotland, nor is there a problem of integration here. The increase in 'Muslim related news' over the past decade and a half is partly agenda-driven by the MSM (or do you think they only do it to Rangers?) and partly because we have been engaged in an illegal war in (Muslim) Iraq and an occupation in (Muslim) Afghanistan and have stood idly by whilst Israel has carried out two genocidal attacks on civilians (Muslim & Christian) Gaza and commits war crimes and illegal land theft every day in the (Muslim & Christian) West Bank.

so explain how he managed to get Motherwell to second spot two in the two years when we weren't there and third spot when we were there, i.e got to the highest place he possibly could have 3 years out of 3.

You haven't answered the question. You said "Musilm leaders not happy ?? what are they ever happy about when it comes to our country and our way of doing things ??!!" If Muslim leaders are never happy with "our country and our way of doing things", I'd be interested to see examples of this. What are these ways of doing things that they are perpetually unhappy about? (We'll ignore the fact that this is also their country for the moment.) For the record, and speaking as someone who would consider themselves instinctively pro-Muslim in any debate on the subject, I agree with your other points - particularly the last one.

I've got as long as you need. Carry on.

For example?

BH, everything you say on this matter is coloured by your obvious dislike of CG and for that reason, I'm going to ignore your final sentence. I suspect that had someone you like sent that tweet you'd be taking the opposite standpoint. I've already answered the points you raise elsewhere, but I'll reiterate. CG was attacking a philosophy, belief system and mode of behaviour which are regarded as reprehensible by Western democratic societies. He was doing so by using that very thing which Chaudery would see banned - an offensive cartoon; the sort of thing that caused the deaths of the people at Charlie Hebdo. That is an acceptable form of philosophical and political discourse. No-one other that Chaudery was being attacked. Anyone who is on Chaudrey's twitter feed in support of his rancid ideas and who viewed the cartoon has no right to be offended. Any normal Muslim who was on his feed just to keep an eye on what rubbish he's promulgating now will be more offended by the shit he spews than by this cartoon. I would imagine, however, that very few normal Muslims will go anywhere near this slug. In short CG's retweeting is "allowable offensiveness". That kind of offensiveness is allowable at all times - because it is our right. Whether is is wise at all times is a different matter.

No, it does not. That's the sort of statement that makes any discussion of the reform of Islam such a bloody minefield.

I suspect there isn't a Muslim on earth who wouldn't be offended - but I'll reiterate my point. CG sent the tweet to one nasty individual because that person wants to curtail our freedom of expression; he didn't send it to a Muslim because he was a Muslim.

John, with respect, you are either missing the point or avoiding it. The character CG sent the tweet to is not an imam; he is no more a muslim cleric than Gerry Adams was a Catholic priest. Choudary is a nasty piece of work and the vast majority of Muslims will have nothing to do with him. CG was being offensive and deliberately so towards an extremist whose version of Islam would deny us all freedom of expression, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Chris responded to the ranting of this eejit by sending him a tweet. He didn't send the tweet to the Central Glasgow Mosque. He didn't send it to the British Council of Muslims - he sent it to this clown; and the message it contained was that in this country we can be offensive and that we have the right to offend - and especially when it comes to religions. It was, if you like, an exchange of cultural ideas. Our culture against a culture that murders cartoonists. Secondly, anyone mocking the Disaster is only ever doing so to be offensive towards Rangers. There is no attack on ideas or philosophy when they mock the dead. The point here is that there is a strain of Islam which would deny us all the right to speak ill of their religion or mock their prophet and kill us for doing so. People like Choudary who would force their modes of behaviour on the rest of us have no grounds for complaint or offense when people respond, like CG did, by reasserting that right to freedom of expression robustly and, if needs be, offensively. But we must not forget, his target was an islamic extremist, not an Imam or Islam itself.

Not necessarily - but it would be advisable. We really don't want any division between the fans and the fans reps and CG's retweet will have been deeply offensive to any Muslim Bear. It would be simple good manners to apologise for any unintended offense and good politics to distance himself and the club from any whiff of Islamophobia.

I reckon so. It's a good choice of words. My own would have been along the lines of "This is a secular democracy. Fuck off" - But then again, Islamic Jihad don't know where I live.

John, the two points I have highlighted are surprisingly weak, coming from you. First of all, when he made that tweet he was not, nor would he conceivably be, a director of Rangers. His position at Rangers is to represent fans' viewpoints; he is not tasked with expanding the Rangers brand in the Middle East and Asia. His response to the rantings of an islamofascist was a legitimate response that can be justified, even if it may not be something that you or I agree with or would have done, It certainly does not call into question his judgement on fan issues or indeed anything else. In my opinion, his retweet was no more Islamophobic than Hugh Dallas' email was anti-Catholic. Allowing him to be branded and Islamophobe, and by implication racist when there is no suggestion that he is either, would not only be shameful it would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. Chris Graham, the public face of the intelligent, erudite, measured Rangers fan is 'exposed' as a bigot and a racist - so what does that make the rest of us? The second point about someone drawing a cartoon about the Disaster is weaker than a Mohsni clearance. There can be no comparison between a heated clash of philosophies and ideas on social media in the aftermath of a massacre that shook the West like few others, and a disaster at a sporting event. Were someone ever to mock the deaths of those fans (oh, I don't know, say some an Aberdeen or Celtic fan for example) then the only possible reason for doing so is hatred of Rangers and naked bigotry. Chants about the 66 are not sung in an attempt to ensure higher standards of health and safety at sporting events. Retweeting a highly offensive cartoon at someone who espouses violence to prevent freedom of expression is an intellectual and valid response to that dogmatism, whether you agree with it or not. And there is of course the obvious difference in that anyone who mocks the deaths of innocents in an accident is no more than a sociopath; those of us who mock the cancerous, medieval, mumbo-jumbo that is religion are mocking an idea only.

It would seem, though, that your solution to dealing with the problem of the scandalous, dangerous and irresponsible reporting of a contentious incident in which one of our very own is attacked like a trailing bison by wolves, is to abandon the bison in the hope that the wolves will go away. If your main concern is the security implications for Rangers fans, I'd suggest your ire would be better aimed at those responsible for putting us all in danger: and it's not Chris Graham.

If I can take your points in reverse order, first I'd begin by saying that defending freedom of expression is conduct very much befitting an Ibrox office holder. Neither Muslims nor anyone else have the right not to be offended. I don't need to point out that he wasn't an office holder at the time he made the tweet and so he cannot be said to have acted in a way that brings disrespect to the office. Second, as to the security implications, that's a concern obviously - but are we to sacrifice good people at the whif of any controversy just so that we don't annoy people whose raison d'etre is to be annoyed? Should we live out lives quietly so that we don't awaken the mad dogs? Third, I fail to see how portraying the sex act is in any way derogatory to homosexuals. Neither the act nor those who practice it were being attacked or maligned. It may be seen by some, obviously yourself, as being derogatory but you're wrong to suggest that seeing is thus is to see it "rightly". Finally, it will have been offensive to every true Muslim and that is unfortunate; but it was not a gratuitous, casual offense. It was done for a particular reason and with a particular target in mind. I bow to no man in my hand-wringy, tree-huggy, homophile, anti-Muslim-bigotry, nationalist, left-wingyness and on this issue, yer tea's oot, Steel.

why will he need to go?

It was offensive and it was meant to be; that's the whole point. However, it could only be seen as racist by an idiot, or by someone with and agenda against CG. The two are not mutually exclusive.