The Real PapaBear

Bets on which player will come out next and say we 'need to start picking up points and wins and improve performance' ??!

 

This lot are beyond laughable.

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

pick a shite team

 

play shite and get booed from the field.

 

tell everyone we'll show them in the next game

 

what a horribly familiar pattern.

 

Already.

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?

I feel that the time is now. A signal of intent that the club will not lie down right off the bat would be much better IMO.

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

Im mostly hoping for a statement from the board, in order for them to condemn the witch hunt and make it clear that Rangers will not stand to continue to be the whipping boys to such an extent above any other club that it just looks petty and hate filled.

This is a vitally important time for the club without these distractions.

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.

Disgusted at our board's capitulation.

 

I wonder if Paul Murray still wants to thank the Daily Rhebel for it's help.

He should be thanking the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. Again.

He didn't deliver a slap in the face to anyone. He offended Islam in general which is completely different. That includes Muslims who want nothing to do with Chaudry or whatever he is called.

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.

Easy the rest of the teams in the spl don't have good enough managers for Rangers either. Have you looked at his record against us? The team of duds we have right now managed by the worst management team in our history still wiped the floor with motherwell . They where so bad we looked like world beaters. A 40% win record in the spl, means nothing.

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%

It's a fact that I don't like Mr Graham so I appreciate you taking time to restate your viewpoint.

 

I understand why you say his re-tweet was "allowable offensiveness" but I disagree for one particular reason. I don't think that Mr Graham is a stupid person and therefore I'm going to credit him with the intelligence to know that even if the message was solely directed at Mr Choudray, it would be read, disseminated and understood for what it was by the wider community and not just Muslims I might add.

 

I don't know whether the message was sent before or after he was co-opted on to the Board of the RST and became their spokesperson but I think I am right in saying that he has been writing (for) the Rangers Standard for some time and has been regarded in the written and broadcast media as some kind of fan's leader or spokesperson as part of the UoF or whatever. Whether he thrust himself into that role or it was thrust upon him, I don't know and care less, but there is no question that he was and until the last two days at least, high profile.

 

Such a person, as I know well, has to be very careful what they say and do in public and these days that extends to so called social media.

 

I stand by my view therefore that it was a silly, childish, ill-considered and deliberately offensive (we agree on that at least) thing to do. I am quite sure he could have made the point to Mr Choudray without using that particular cartoon. I see we also agree that it may not have been the wisest thing to do.

 

I don't think that a fan's representative should be behaving in that way, because even if your view is correct, which I don't concede; it is clearly controversial and divisive at a time when that is the last thing we need. Yes it was made in the past but the not too distant past and quite why he didn't just apologise and be done with it is beyond me.

 

No doubt we'll hear more in early course.

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.

Mate - I think the 'examples' are all around us and are reported in news outlets every day of our lives. Over the past 10-15 years the amount of 'muslim' related news items have increased dramatically and has started to dominate. Why is this ? - Because there are so many problems with the amount of immigrattion we have and so many problems we have with 'integration'. Look at Leicester, Bradford, Luton, Birmingham, parts of Manchester, London, etc. etc. ect. Huge social problems related to the mulsim community. To deny that would be absurd.

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.

Rangers v Motherwell under their tenures.

 

they do not only show mccoist wiped the floor with him they also show that McCall is not very good at getting an underdog to compete.

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.

So you are trying to say that musilims in the 'west' / UK are totally content with how we do things and what our cultures involve ? And that mulslims generally integrate well into UK society ?

 

For the record, I'd say the vast majority of people in the UK would have absolutely no problem and not be offended in the slightest with what CG re-tweeted to that c.unt Choudry.

 

What we have here is timothy, a rhat infested Scottish mhedia and some bitter, bitter Rangers fans on a witchhunt against Chis Graham.

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.

Have you got a spare 12 hours ??!

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

Not this again - no I don't know for sure.

 

But my faith in our new Board indicates to me that they will see this for what it is - a storm in a tea cup that has been dragged up in a witchhunt by ****s, mhedia and some of 'our own' who threatened that they would get CG off the board by hook or by crook if he were ever appointed.

 

Musilm leaders not happy ?? what are they ever happy about when it comes to our country and our way of doing things ??!!

For example?

Whilst no one would argue with your final sentence, I think the issue here is where you would draw the line between allowable and non-allowable offensiveness. As RB points out whilst the re-tweet was sent to Choudary it is there for all Muslims to read and clearly grossly offensive to some if not most. Would you say that it is OK to be offensive so long as it is not the kind of offensiveness that might lead to a riot and who is to make that judgement, a policeman and/or the procurator fiscal as with the oft derided Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act? Or just a Breach of the Peace type situation?

 

It is easy to find ways to justify Mr Graham's actions but isn't even easier just to admit that it was a silly, childish thing to do and whether he was a director of Rangers at the time or not, it shows he is not the type of person who should hold that office.

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.

You having a drink at the pub causes offense to all Muslims.

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

I think the problem is though it could cause offence to all muslims(not just Chaudrey) whether intentional or not.

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.

I didn't accuse him of Islamaphobia nor do I think he is only that sending that tweet directly to a muslim cleric demonstrated a lack of judgement. That he wasn't a director of Rangers at the time isn't really the issue but it didn't happen 20 years ago. I'm assuming he doesn't know the imam in question, in which case he chose to send something he knew would be offensive to someone he dislikes and with who he disagrees even though he's never met them. I'm sorry but how can that be viewed as anything other than inflammatory and aggressive? I was as horrified by those killings as Chris Graham but somehow I managed not to send offensive pictures to imams I've never met.

 

I don't feel it is a weak point, it's fairly well known that drawings of Mohamad cause varying degrees of offence to muslims, in that one he's giving someone a hand-job. That's not satire or a making a clever social point, that's just done purely to offend. How anyone can see that as anything but a lack of good judgement I don't know.

 

I'm not drawing any parallels between that cartoon tweet and someone making fun of the Ibrox disaster, simply making the point that claiming freedom of expression needs more thought. Aberdeen fans sing about it because they know it causes offence and outrage, exactly the same emotions that cartoon is intended to stir in an awful lot of people.

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 - any investigation or its outcome need not be made public.

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.

The Club have said they are investigating so they have to respond one way or the other.

 

My guess is that Mr Graham will make an apology for any unintended offence caused.

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.

Is Chris Graham getting some 'payback' for his stance towards many in the media? Undoubtedly in my opinion. When you've been as strident as he's been about reporting standards and quality you set yourself up as a target. There's revenge at play here and those who offered him the position should have seen that coming.

 

However that doesn't make this story on him wrong. It was an insane thing to 'tweet' and demonstrates a staggering lack of judgement, that alone should throw a question over his new role. Every right thinking person was horrified and disgusted by the Charlie Hebdo attacks but most of us didn't choose to draw something crude and deliberately provocative and send it to a Muslim cleric, whatever our view of his 'beliefs'.

 

There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of who would have found that drawing deeply offensive, that after all was its aim. It's all very well championing freedom of speech but that doesn't take away personal responsibility. Had someone drawn a crude cartoon deliberately mocking the Ibrox disaster how would we feel if two months later that person was made a director of a senior football club? I've a feeling we wouldn't be defending his freedom of expression.

 

I've no idea what Chris Graham's views are on Islam and I'd have little difficulty accepting this was a knee-jerk reaction done in the heat of the moment and with perspective he might now regret it. But he needs to say that and see what the fall out is. Either way if (and I think it highly likely) an intelligent and reasonable muslim commentator criticises him for this he'll come under huge pressure to step down.

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.

I'm certain you're right, and there's absolutely no doubt that Chris wouldn't do the same again, no-one sane would. But that's kind of shutting the stable door. And it was what, 11 weeks ago? Not exactly a lifetime.

 

My main concern over this, which has got a bit lost amid the offended/free speech mire, is actually the security implications for Rangers fans. I think the reporting is a scandal, inasmuch as if the media wanted revenge (which seems obvious) they could have gone to Police Scotland to alert them they were running with it, who might have 'had a quiet word'. Blasting it out around the world's internet is so irresponsible it's just not real. But there it is, and we have to deal with it. It's just a nightmare.

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.

Because it will be seen, rightly, as offensive to every Muslim Rangers supporter; because it will seen, rightly, as casually derogatory to ward homosexual Rangers supporters; because it could conceivably have dire security implications for the stadium; and because it is conduct unbefitting the office.

 

Although that last seems to have been devalued to the nth degree anyway.

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.

truth is he'll need to go

pity, he's done good work and did well for us on telly

parallels with Hugh Dallas obviously

why will he need to go?

It's another example of something that seen as racist and offensive whether we agree with it or not. Personally I'm far from being PC about these things.

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.