D'Artagnan

The UK requires a strong BBC. It's as much as part of the nation as the monarchy or moaning about the weather.

 

If they abuse their position of power (and which establishment body has not!) they must be brought to book. But to lose a publicly funded cultural organ which operates outwith government control is, for me, to lose an absolutely fundamental bedrock of British democracy.

Im reminded of a poster on Rangers forums, who a few years ago wrote to the BBC regarding their treatment of Rangers.....

Now who could that have been ? ;-))

“The moral compass of any nation can be judged, not just by the conduct and character of the accused, but the conduct and character of the accusers”

(Anonymous)

I despair. I truly despair. I feel powerless. Is no-one else seeing this ? Is no-one else feeling this ? Has our country become a nation where our opinion leaders, our politicians, our journalists have become afraid to speak out and reset a moral compass which is spinning out of control ?

Let me re-phrase that – spinning dangerously out of control.

For I’m not alone in the feelings I’m experiencing. Anger, indignation, resentment, but most of all…… a complete lack of representation. Its ironic to think now that not so long ago 2 bears were ejected from Ibrox for displaying a banner “One Scotland – many cultures – except Rangers” I don’t know about you but that’s certainly an accurate reflection of how I feel today.

The most fundamental of human rights – innocent until proven guilty – have been totally discarded where Rangers are concerned. It’s a sign of the times that its only recently that some journalists such as Traynor and Hannah broke cover to reveal they had seen the contents of a document which declared Rangers “guilty” without charge or trial. That in itself tells its own story.

But months ago I listened to Brian Taylor’s Big Debate on BBC Scotland where the terms “dual contracts” “financial doping” and “cheats” were thrown about without censure in a debate about our club. Not once did Taylor, the facilitator, step in to remind the audience and the panel, that such allegations were as yet, unproven.

But of course the scene has already been set. Which appropriately, brings us back to my opening quotation.

Just who are the accusers of Rangers and how does their character and conduct stand up to the type of forensic examination being carried out in respect of our club ?

Let’s start with Phil Mac Giollbhain…also known Phil Gillvan…also known as Phil McGillvan. A man who seems to have great difficulty not only remembering his surname, but also the age of his daughter, how many brothers and sisters he has, the licensed premises he frequents and also his occupation. 3 names will speak about a lot of things – surprising then that he never seems to mention his employment as a social worker in Glasgow and the reasons why he no longer holds such a position.

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=267:phil-gillivan-qaa

Not for the first time, I find myself indebted to Vanguard Bears and their research.

Of course recently, the Sun newspaper were going to run serialise 3 names blog in their newspaper until an upswell of anger caused a change of direction. 3 names was accused by the newspaper of being “tarred with a sickening sectarian brush”. Its probably one of the few times in recent years that said newspaper had actually been accurate in its reporting.

I think for those of us who still aspire to some kind of moral compass the description of 3 names as a “tactical bigot” by a Southern Irish journalist probably carries a lot more weight and authority than a tabloid who sought to feed the bloodfest of hate against Rangers by serialising his book.

But a theme is developing here. For its not only the Sun which seeks to feed that bloodfest. The editor of the Daily Record, Alan Rennie, has been begging the authors of The Rangers Tax case blog to contribute to the opinion forming columns of their publication. If anyone has any doubts please feel free to check the aforesaid Rennie’s tweets.

There has of course been considerable speculation, let alone evidence, that one of the Rangers Tax case authors is none other than Paul McConville. A quick search of google will acquaint you with both the conduct and character of Paul McConville.

In fact I wonder if the terms of his supervision order extend to his blog “Random Thoughts re Scots Law”. It seems Mr McConville has as much difficulty with the term “random” as he does with the term “justice for miners”. 291 articles about Rangers, 109 about Charles Green as well as numerous other “random thoughts” concerning our club and its employees.

Its perhaps remarkable that a man who started a blog because his wife was sick to death of his waffle on legal matters, can attribute hundreds of random thoughts to Rangers FC and yet only one, (yes one) to the legal minefield which is Mr Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber whose conviction and subsequent release on compassionate grounds led to something of a diplomatic fall out with our closest ally.

It is worth asking the question why 2 of Scotland’s biggest selling tabloids sought to bring on board persons whose integrity, character and conduct is quite clearly flawed. Or does that not matter if they are bashing Rangers ?

But I’m not finished yet. In fact I’ve barely started.

But I will conclude this article with another of our accusers who have been something of a critical thorn in the side of our club for a long time – the BBC. A publicly funded company whose conduct in the last few months has seen them banned from Ibrox due to a tasteless depiction of Ally McCoist falling to his death. A sketch which the Samaritans took time to criticise. And yet the BBC were unapologetic.

It came as no surprise to me. They were also unapologetic at the time of the Andrew Gilligan affair. When the Hutton report was published it showed considerable failings within the BBC. So much so their director general Greg Dyke resigned.

Many years on the failings and arrogance of this organisation have come home to roost. The revelations surrounding Jimmy Saville have shocked a nation. Perhaps the failings of the BBC have shocked the nation even more. For those BBC apologists who are saying it was a long time ago and the culture etc was different blah blah blah….tell me then why did the BBC cancel a Newsnight documentary last year which sought to expose this perverts’s conduct ?

I hope this latest revelation will be the final nail in the coffin for this organisation. Its time they were relieved of the right to demand a licence fee, I hope the next government review remembers both their character and conduct.

For a Scotland whose moral compass seems to be in turmoil I will leave you with an observation and reflection from Freud.

“A civilization which leaves so large a number of its participants unsatisfied and drives them into revolt neither has nor deserves the prospect of a lasting existence.”

Where is the proof ? We're kidding ourselves again.

Ok I didnt bite yesterday but Im not going to let this one go unchallenged. The guys at VB have done an excellent exposure job here and I'm not going to let your throwaway comments just slip by.

In an government agency investigation which has been characterised by leaks to the likes of Phil 3 names and The Rangers Tax Case - we have a high ranking member of HMRC on a public forum openly discussing details of the case with all and sundry. Furthermore both his comments and his language style convey an attitude that is neither fair, balanced impartial or objective. And that is putting it mildly. His overall tone is sectarian in nature and he appears eager to rubbish anyone who is willing to defend our club. The latter characteristic is something you appear to share with him.

As alluded to in the original thread the tweet referred to has resulted in both suspensions and a Police investigation. Seems there was sufficient "proof" for some to warrant enquiry.

sounds uncannily like the definitive definition of david cameron's 'big society'!

rotflmao !!

Good article Zap. I cannot get my head round how Jig thought it was okay to say that he was not embarrassed by the result and in the next sentence admit that Albion worked harder than us.

Where is the proof ? We're kidding ourselves again.

Are you for real ?

Surely it is absolutely appropriate to respond to an erroneous and misleading article which may affect future investment at our club, notwithstanding to re-assure the fans ?

I suffered 3 weeks of constant sea sickness and occasional encounters with bootnecks to be confronted on the shore of San Carlos Water by a colony of vicious penguins. Still, more agreeable than your chaps replete in the green berets. I believe they are awarded said head dress for showering 4 or 5 times a day?

Nope not going to nibble on that one 26th.

Where can I read it?

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=292:the-hmrc-employee-a-the-rangers-tax-case

I think it will hit the papers but I don't think it will get 'Scandal' rating. Knowing the way our systems work I am willing to bet HMRC will be commended for dealing with it swiftly and it will get not much more than "HMRC employee suspended for using H word on Twitter".

Its been sent to a various persons Anchorman - including MP's - some of whom feel it is worthy of taking further.

Surprisingly the media outlets contacted appear not to deem it newsworthy.

We need to get Apple involved in this...

Would I-Brox stadium not be a nice compromise ?

so has he been arrested and sacked?

I think he along with a number of others have been suspended pending a Police investigation.

What corruption did they expose ?

An employee of HMRC on Twitter, discussing the Rangers Tax Case with all and sundry and with a particularly one sided view of the circumstances. Add to that he describes Rangers and their support using terms which , if used within a football ground would lead to him being arrested.

Its is an astonishing read.

Just meant I can't see much point in me apologising for things I had nothing to do with, regardless of my opinion of them. Probably not the best example but I'm trying to get my head around oppositional tension and anti-referentiality in the poetry of Yeats so there's not much brain power left over.

Ok. Just thought it was a strange example, as having fought there and met with many islanders - cant see anything to apologise for.

(you might as well ask me to feel sad about the Falklands War...it was there, I didn't approve of it but it certainly wasn't my fault)

Enjoyed the article Andy but was confused by the bit in quotes.

AMMS - Enjoyable read.

Could part of the problem concerning the home grown model be that the youngsters of nowadays would be more interested in the car their role models drives rather than how to shoot properly ie a question of commitment and attitude ?

Perhaps the only thing which surprised about Charles Greenâ??s appearance before the SFA beaks last week is that the case was declared â??Not Provenâ?.

Green had been charged with bringing the game into disrepute for suggesting, during a media interview, that the current outcome and sanctions of the investigation into Rangers use of EBTâ??s had already been pre-determined by the SPL.

Unfortunately for the governing bodies of Scottish Football documentary evidence exists which supports Greenâ??s assertion.

Reports in some of the tabloids of course suggest that Greenâ??s defence was helped by SFL Chief Executive David Longmuirâ??s testimony â?? I wonder if the aforesaid Mr Longmuir took the stand and declared in true Chamberlainesque fashion â??I have in my hands a piece of paperâ?.

Perhaps that was more than enough for the judicial panel.

But thatâ??s not enough. Not nearly enough.

A fundamental principle of Scottish and European Law has been breached â?? the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And yet there seems to be dearth of discussion around this fact. Sure there has been some criticism in some quarters of the SFA/SPL handling of the whole Rangers crisis, but few seem to be prepared to comment on this breach of a fundamental rule of law.

In fact Iâ??m surprised that internet legal eagle Paul McConville has not brought this up on his blog â??Random thoughts on Scots Law. After all, a quick review of his topics of discussion show that he has managed 291 random thoughts on Rangers alone, notwithstanding 109 random thoughts on Charles Green, as well as other matters and individuals concerning our club. It will of course come as no surprise to many of you that this apparently fundamental breach of Scottish Lawâ??s most basic of principles by Scottish footballâ??s governing bodies has not managed a single bleep on the random thought radar of Mr McConville. Or do I do him a discredit ? I wouldnâ??t be the first of course.

That presumption of innocence is of course essential to ensuring a fair trial or hearing, which again is a fundamental rule of both Scottish and European Law.

Failing to adopt such a stance at the beginning of any investigation is likely to prejudice any future case. It affects briefings, it affects investigations and, of course, it affects investigators. In recent times convictions have been quashed because the appellant has been able to demonstrate that some evidence has been withheld during trials. Investigators have to be objective, fair and present all evidence to the prosecuting authorities.

This can only be done if they are correctly briefed at the outset of any investigation and maintain an open mind throughout. One wonders what kind of briefing the investigators from Harper MacLeod legal firm received from the SFA/SPL at the outset of the Rangers enquiry.

So if we were to take a hypothetical situationâ?¦for instance one of those open-minded, fair and impartial investigators were to say to Rangers representatives â??You bastards have been cheating us for yearsâ?â?¦.. then I very much doubt that would demonstrate that a fair, open minded and impartial investigation had taken place.

Perhaps one day in the future before another court, Mr Longmuir will get to present that piece of paper. And when that day comes I have a feeling it wont be the reputation of Rangers FC which is on trial.

Come on, man, that's miles off target.

 

If Rangers FC want to pay tribute to fans from Ulster there are many ways to do it - pay for their travel on a specific weekend, play in the province, have a Red Hand flag day - I doubt if many of us would have a problem with that despite it, too, being open to charges of 'offensiveness' from the usual suspects - maybe a 5% discount on season books, I mean the only limit is your imagination. Flinging the sop of an Orange top at them (and expecting them to pay for it, I might add) is not only the least imaginative tribute possible, it verges on exploitation.

I think Andy its you thats miles off target.

The suggestion has been made by Northern Irish Rangers supporters - not the club.

I agree there are many other ways for the club to show its appreciation - but an orange top was what was mentioned at the meeting.

And likewise AMMS Im grateful for your fothright reply. I dont agree with everyone youve written - particularly towards the leadership - but thats neither here or there for this discussion. You make a very important point though...

I'd add though that position is quite different from the one they hold here, and that's a significant point in this debate.

A point she makes on a number of occasions in actual fact.

So any opposition to an orange strip must be viewed through the prism of present day Scotland, because that's where most of us are. If the OO are misunderstood and badly maligned it's not up to Rangers to fix that.

Perhaps in this huge thread something has been forgotten.

It was Rangers supporters in Northern Ireland who asked the question regarding the possibility of an orange top. If Charles Green decides that its a goer as a tribute to the many bears from Ulster who follow week after week - then I have no problem with that.

If others wish to maliciously, erroneously or mischieviously infer or believe its for any other reason then let them. Let that be their shame.

AMMS â?? I assured you I would give you a reply so here goes.

I have spent a lot of time in Ulster over the years, particularly within the Protestant community, which has provided me with considerable insight and understanding of that community. But I would not ask you, or expect you to take my subjective experience as gospel so to speak.

Hence why a number of times throughout this thread I have recommended Ruth Dudley Edwards book â?? Faithful Tribe â?? as a worthy read for anyone. Ruth Dudley Edwards is a southern Irish journalist and broadcaster who was raised a Roman Catholic, she was given a â??warts and all insightâ? into the Orange Order and other Loyal Institutions. Her book, written after several years study, not only presents a clear a picture of those Loyal Institutions but of life in Northern Ireland, particular with regard to culture and its significance. She now appears regularly on talk shows as an apologist (from the Greek to defend not apologise) for the Orange Order. Perhaps those in this thread who labelled the OO sectarian may wish to ponder why she would do this.

I mention this book so that if you have any doubt as to the veracity of what I'm about to say, you are more than welcome to check for yourself.

And now to why I am ashamed by some of what is written in this thread.

As others have attested to throughout this thread the colour orange is a significant symbol within Protestant communities in Northern Ireland and not specifically to the Orange Order. The Boyne celebrations are of course a big event amongst the Protestant community I wonder how many posters here know that the Orange Order never fought at the Battle of the Boyne or that the Pope was actually an ally of King William of Orange at the aforesaid battle (within the League of Augsburg)

As Der Berliner pointed out there is much misunderstanding about that battle both in the past and to how it is perceived today. But irrespective of this, orange is a colour which has significance amongst the widespread Protestant community of Northern Ireland â?? its significance comes from William of Orange â?? not the Orange Order â?? furthermore it significance within that culture cannot be underestimated.

And its a culture which is continually under attack. The bombs, the bullet and the campaigns of terror could not defeat the Protestant people of Ulster, but the tactics have changed. The attacks now are on their culture â?? quite simply they are trying to extinguish it. Edwards devotes several chapters in her book to this subject such is its importance.

Of course culture doesn't live in books, it lives in the hearts and the minds of a community. It is expressed through song, through cultural events, through banners flags and other symbols. Of course if you stop such cultural events, ban songs or flags or symbols you are well on the way to stifling such expression of that culture. Job done.

It is important of course we recognise that when we talk of Ulster we are referring to Ulster Scots. That shared heritage, history and religion was of course, formally recognised under the Mitchell Agreement. Such formal aligning with the people of Scotland was a source of great celebration for the people of Northern Ireland. There is probably no better expression or symbolism of that shared heritage than that contained in the words of the Sash. Yet in this thread it is described as follows ..

The Sash is a terrible song which to those not in the know, probably comes across as a bit gay. I've nothing against gay people, but I'm not gay and don't want my club to be thought of as being a gay one - and the same applies to the OO

Rangers Football Club are an intrinsic part of the Protestant community of Northern Ireland. Outside of our native Glasgow, Belfast is the largest Rangers supporting city in the world. When Scottish MPs are silent you will often find Ulster MP's speaking out in defence of our club or its support. If Rangers were to bring out an orange coloured top the Protestant community of Northern Ireland would consider it a great honour. Due to the geographics and logistical problems, Ulster Bears spend more money, more of their time and overcome greater obstacles than the majority of us in Scotland in their desire to follow follow.

I think there are a number of posts in this thread which display a lack of understanding, respect and sensitivity towards what a section of our support holds dear.

Hence my shame.

See that's the difference you see Orange and all you see is OO, I see orange and I think of my friends from Ulster and what they had to live through and what their parents and their parents parents had to do to live the life they wanted. These same people you would rather stayed across the water every other Saturday and find another team to support.

 

If you can't be bothered to find out why they hold the colour Orange so dear then why have a pop at them for wanting it on 3rd kit ( yes a 3rd kit I may add), also for someone who doesn't do Ulster or religion you seem to have a lot to say on the subject.

Nail on the head GA.

What aspects in particular? Why does people having a different opinion to you cause you shame? Serious question.

I will respond to you on this one later AMMS as it wont be a short reply - but what I will say is that people disagreeing or having a different opinion does not shame me at all - ill informed and ignorant comments about sections of our support certainly do. Particularly when they are not here to defend themselves.

Where you're from is not really point? The poster asked why I associate an orange strip with a religious organisation? I merely asked why certain fans (using the NI fans as an example) are asking for an orange strip and not a yellow' date=' pink or aubergine strip..oh wait, we've had that.

 

I'll ask you the same question. Why would you want a orange strip above our traditional colours?[/quote']

 

Im beginning to wonder if you are deliberately mischief making here. I explained to you several posts ago why bears in Ulster would want an orange top.

 

But heres a suggestion - why dont you ask the Bears who made the suggestion why they want an orange top. Furthermore suggest to them that there are some on this forum who believe its nothing more than "self interest".

 

See what reaction you get.

Stay true to Rangers? What is that by the way.

 

For any Ulster Bears who read this thread I apologise for the slating you seem be getting, because you want to sport your team your way and not somebodies PC version set up not to offend anybody and be liked by all. As far as this bear is concerned you are more than welcome and long my you keep coming, as the say goes who needs enemies when you've got friends like these.

 

Always thought the we must be loved mantra was just a thing the Mhanks did, it seems to be spreading across the city hopefully it will be a limited outbreak.

And I would second that.

Its not often Im ashamed at any threads on a Rangers forum....but this one managed it.

Interesting excerpt below from a 2004 interview with Rod Mckenzie of Harper MacLeod, taken from the Firm magazine. Gives a good insight into the guys modus operandi and how he might have approached the Rangers assignment. The piece was titled "Natural born killer"...

 

He says: “Typically, in a litigation, I will make a very early decision about strategy for the case. I think, ‘This is how I will get a result for my client in this case.’ That strategy can involve a number of different elements. It can involve issues of fact, where we may have very strong evidence of fact or good documentation. It could involve a legal point, where we isolate that point and set out to get a victory on that alone. It could also be that the other side is weak, either because it is not well represented or because it hasn’t got much money. It can sometimes be because the other party needs an early settlement as they need the cash quickly to move their business on. Occasionally you play out certain cases in the glare of publicity but you only use the media to win the right sorts of case.

“You pull all of those things together and then ask what it is that the client actually wants to achieve here. That must always be your primary driver. For most business people, they want to be able to go away and make money; they don’t want their resources to be diverted into a large litigation that will be drawn out over a long period of time.

“The critical thing about winning litigation is to have a strategy and to drive forward with that. That does not mean to drive forward blindly and if new things turn up in the case you ignore them just because they don’t fit with your predefined strategy. It is easy in the early days to get a bit woods and trees about litigation, as some solicitors think that they have to get this statement, that statement, this documentation from him, that documentation from them and so on. You have to stop and think, ‘What are we trying to achieve here?’”

 

I wonder who he sees the client being in our case?

Nice find Crawf.

Hope our legal team are equally as ruthless.