Jump to content

 

 

barca72

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,356

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by barca72

  1. barca72
    The analogy was very well done. Kudos.
  2. barca72
    I agree with you on the immigrant community depiction, however, I disagree on the cadre comparison. For the most part this would hold true normally, but the Irish/catholic community have long reached comfortable middle-class status and yet they are still greatly over- represented compared to other communities. For a long time SDM and those who came after him conceded Rangers responsibility to maintain a level of representation in the governance of Scottish football. This does not, however, explain the wholesale bigotry of the SPL owners' treatment of Rangers. Were their votes completely independant and hence coincidental, or were Rangers akin to a lightning rod that attracted their wrath? How many of these owners or their fans have Irish or catholic leanings? Just how political is football in Scotland? Similarly, is the greater number of catholic politicians in the general populace to be put down to voter apathy completely?
  3. barca72
    I didn't think Burley had it in him to give this assessment ... http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/460538/Norwich-won-t-want-Neil-says-former-Hoops-star-Burley Norwich won’t want Neil, says former Hoops star Burley CRAIG BURLEY last night dismissed the prospect of Norwich City going for Neil Lennon if the Canaries part company with current boss Chris Hughton. By: Graham ClarkPublished: Wed, February 19, 2014 1Comments Burley can't see Lennon going to Norwich [ROSCO] The Celtic manager is rumoured to be the leading target for the struggling Premier League outfit if they press the panic button. But ex-Celtic and Scotland star Burley, now working full-time covering England’s top-flight for ESPN in America, does not see them as the ideal match and doesn’t believe Norwich would want Lennon or, for that matter, that Lennon would want Norwich. “Marriage made in heaven? Hell, more like,” insisted the former midfield man. “I just don’t see it. In the first instance I can’t imagine Norwich looking to Scotland for a replacement for Hughton if they decide a change is necessary and even if they did I’m not at all sure Neil would believe it’s the right club for him.” I just don’t think Neil is a good fit for Norwich City and vice versa Craig Burley Burley’s appraisal of the situation will surprise many who reckon the Carrow Road club could do with a forceful personality like Lennon as they desperately look to claw their way to Premier League safety. The axe could fall on Hughton if Norwich lose at home to Tottenham on Sunday after chief executive David McNally – a former commercial director at Parkhead – hinted patience is running out. McNally’s role meant an immediate link to Lennon with another former Celtic player in the form of Malky Mackay also reported to be in the frame. However Burley added: “Neil would be better off staying at Celtic and waiting for something else. “He has to be careful. If he jumps ship then he has to get it right and I think he would be better off maybe going to a club that is on the up and up in the Championship in the first instance. “That way he can enhance his reputation by maybe making it into the Premier League and then take the next step to a bigger and better club maybe in the kind of second tier of the game there behind the likes of Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United. “But if he goes to a struggling Norwich City he will inherit the same problems Hughton has had and, for that matter, that Paul Lambert who did a terrific job for them would have had as well. “You really don’t want to be scrambling about near the bottom of the Premier League and maybe getting relegated. “That wouldn’t sit well on anyone’s CV and it wouldn’t do his stock any favours at all.” But by the same token, Burley doesn’t think Norwich would be that attracted to Lennon anyway and went on: “It wouldn’t be a good move for him or them. “The problem for Neil is that clubs in the south look up at Scotland and without exception think that Celtic should be winning the league because there’s no Rangers and no competition. “I know Neil and Celtic can only beat what’s put in front of them but try telling people in England that. “They just see a league that is effectively won before a ball is kicked in earnest and, unfortunately from Neil’s point of view, they also see that Celtic have been knocked out of two cup competitions – and at home at that. “Directors and officials in England see that for themselves. “Honestly, without Rangers providing some serious opposition there is a stigma about Celtic winning the Premiership. You can dress it up any way you like but it’s not that great. “The Ibrox club not being involved isn’t doing Neil any favours. “The Champions League last season did elevate Neil a bit but this season’s European campaign didn’t go nearly as well so that didn’t help him either. “There will be doubts about him at English clubs just as there is a general reluctance to look beyond the border for players, never mind managers. “I know one Premier League manager who doesn’t even scout Scotland anymore and although you could argue the wisdom of that it kind of illustrates the general perception of Scottish football with people down south. “I just don’t think Neil is a good fit for Norwich City and vice versa.”
  4. barca72
    If you say so, man. Tell me though, how else do you explain the huge preponderance of of "them" in most of the bodies I mentioned before? Why are there questions being asked about the silence in the MSM, the number of Celtic ST holders on the committees dealing with the land deals, the makeup of the corrupt cabal in the SFA/SPL/SPFL, and more? It is way too large just to be an east end conspiracy. If, as you try to portray things as being normal - people are people and want the best for their kids etc. I understand that - why are 'we' coming up on the short end of the straw while 'they' are gaining advantages all over the place? Just coincidence? I would think that there are warning signs all around and if 'we' don't get a bit more organized with a more representative political scene, this fantasy might take a different direction.
  5. barca72
    Good morning, I'm back again. Let's bring this discussion back to the point where it took off. We had ... Originally Posted by bluebear54 "It's a question of the tail wagging the dog. The driving factor is the self styled "Irish/Catholic" lobby. In my opinion they are the most powerful, most organised and most motivated political force in Scotland today." Then we had ... Originally Posted by barca72 "Why are the Protestants lacking in leadership, organization and motivation ( sounds almost like the Rangers support ), and why are the catholics so well marshalled? Is this leadership they have, the influence of Reid?" And Pete replies ... "I would say it is what they are taught at school. they are taught that they are an apart race and learn to stick together and we are not really busy with those kind of lessons." Which led to barca72 saying ... Observing from this side of the pond, it almost appears like a have/havenot thing. We have it, they want it; they're taking it we don't care. Reid had said a while back that the time has come for them not to sit at the back of the bus anymore. It seems to me that if the non-catholic population does not waken up to this power grab then there won't be a bus. Now to prevent any confusion and to restrain any more eclectic arguments, these posts were talking about the "Irish/Catholic" lobby ( they ) and the non-catholic lobby, which for want of a better word was described as Protestant ( us ). Now Andy, whether you like it or not, the "Irish /Catholic" lobby sees only one opponent - us ( the h*ns, the non-catholic group ). 'They' considered that 'we' were oppressing them and whatever it was that 'we' had 'they' wanted it. 'They' were accepted into Scotland in a time of need and slowly but surely bettered their position in life. This is as it should be, and 'they' are to be admired for their hard work and diligence in improving their standing. However, to the dismay of the apathetic 'us', 'they' are not satisfied with middle class standing 'they' want more. Political power, no doubt. Pete has said that "they are taught that they are an apart race", 'they' seem to take that seriously. Who controls - GCC; many University faculties; many editorial and main stream media positions; many MP, MSP, councillor, sheriff, and mid-level management positions, charities and so many other examples? I would suggest 'they' do. From our point of view, and more serious for 'us', 'they' control the Scottish football authorities. Now my point was, that the same apathy that runs through general non-catholic society has caught up with us in the football world, and if we don't waken up to it, the chance to have an equal say in the governance of our football destiny may be gone forever. I should say that just previous to posting in this thread I had been reading this article from another thread and it may have impacted my thought process ... http://uk.news.yahoo...16.html#4eOqrsO The equality tribunal awarded €750 to the parents of a young schoolboy who was discriminated against on religious grounds by his primary school. The Equality Officer in the case also ordered that the Gaelscoil in question to review its policies and procedures to ensure that they are in line with the Equal Status Acts. The case was taken against the national school in 2011 and was concluded last month. The complainants contended that their son was discriminated against because he was of the Church of Ireland faith. The school was set up with an Interdenominational ethos to include by the Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland faiths. The parents were told all faiths were welcome in the school and the RC and COI faiths would be actively taught. Problems emerged in 2008 when the complainant’s class was preparing for First Communion. The parents asked if their son could sit out of practice but were told by the Principal that if he was in school he had to participate. According to the case file, the complainant’s parents took no further issue that year as they believed the difficulties would not arise again until 6th year when there would be preparations for Confirmation. However, by Third Class, it was apparent that all pupils were required and expected to take part in choir practices for both Communion and Confirmation. The complainant’s parents said they questioned the amount of time spent on Roman Catholic education and were told that if they did not like it, they were perfectly within their rights to remove their child from the school and enrol him in another school. According to their complaint: The parents questioned why only RC teaching was covered in religious education and were told by the Principal that as the RC and COI religions are 95 per cent the same that only covering the RC religion would be sufficient for both. The schoolboy and his parents did not attend a First Communion ceremony on a Saturday in May 2009. The tribunal heard that the following Monday, the Principal visited his classroom, asked anyone who did not attend to stand at the wall, and continued to praise the sitting children, giving them two nights off homework. The parents said their son was upset by these events and believed he had done something wrong. In a subsequent meeting, the parents claim that the Principal told them they were part of the “rebel crowd” who broke away from the one true religion. In its response to the complaint, the school said it rewards students who attend events outside school hours and behave in an “excellent manner”. It noted that pupils had given up their Saturday morning, with many “missing out on swimming lessons, GAA, rugby coaching or just ‘chill out’ time”. On the day of the hearing last year, however, the Board of Management apologised to the parents in relation to the alleged treatment by the Principal, who is now currently on administrative leave.
  6. barca72
    Observing from this side of the pond, it almost appears like a have/havenot thing. We have it, they want it; they're taking it we don't care. Reid had said a while back that the time has come for them not to sit at the back of the bus anymore. It seems to me that if the non-catholic population does not waken up to this power grab then there won't be a bus. Where is a 'John Knox' type of leader/personality when you need them to stir the apathetic population to the required awareness before the culture is gone completely. The Republic of Scotland, indeed.
  7. barca72
    Why are the Protestants lacking in leadership, organization and motivation ( sounds almost like the Rangers support ), and why are the catholics so well marshalled? Is this leadership they have the influence of Reid?
  8. barca72
    Is the suggestion here that Salmond cares only for the catholic vote and not for the apathetic Protestant vote?
  9. barca72
    This is true. "How much is class a factor in this crackdown on football fans? Dr Waiton: It is not a direct factor in some respect i.e. being offensive can lead to anyone being arrested on Twitter etc. But it is a factor, in that football fans who are being targeted specifically in the new law and generally in terms of the obsession with campaigns to kick racism, sectarianism, wife beating, anti-semitism etc etc out of football. The modern liberal elite hate football fans who they often casually insult as knuckle-dragging bigots. This of course reflects their prejudices far more than it does the outlook if fans. This couples up with an old conservative fear of the ‘mob’ and loathing of the ‘unwashed’. Taken together we have a very dangerous hate-filled dynamic of regulation and control being targeted at the white working class in Scotland and indeed across the UK."
  10. barca72
    He does do noise, though. Boy, did this lot's punishment fit the crime, eh? ... http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/460147/Green-Brigade-return-to-Celtic-Park Green Brigade return to Celtic Park NEIL LENNON welcomed The Green Brigade back to Celtic Park and hopes their return is permanent. By: Michael BailliePublished: Mon, February 17, 2014 0Comments Lennon is delighted that The Green Brigade are at Celtic Park again [GETTY] Celtic had attempted to disperse the notorious fans’ group The Green Brigade when they offered to relocate the 250 season ticket holders from a section of Celtic Park in December following a series of incidents. But yesterday the group were back, around 200 fans congregating behind a Green Brigade banner at the Premiership clash with St Johnstone. Lennon had previously been critical of the fans’ group but was delighted with the atmosphere they created at yesterday’s league clash. I got word this week that they might be in and I was delighted to hear that noise - Neil Lennon Lennon said: “Whoever they were – I don’t know if they were the official Green Brigade or not – I can’t thank them enough because they made a hell of a difference to the atmosphere today. And I’d have thought the players thrived on it. “I got word this week that they might be in and I was delighted to hear that noise. “So long as everyone works within the rules of the club then we welcome that colour, energy, noise. It’s been part of my time here for the last three-and-a-half years and we don’t want to miss that because they brought a lot.” When a Celtic spokeswoman was asked about The Green Brigade’s return, she replied: “They were not banned. They have bought individual match tickets.” ( n.b. that translates to she went around every pub in the Gallowgate giving out freebies. )
  11. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    See the thing is who is it that is saying that f****n is a sectarian slur? Prof. Tom Devine or the police? We can all look up Wikipedia and see that the f****n brotherhood was formed as a nationalist brotherhood, so why would anyone think we are talking religious bigotry here. http://www.scotzine.com/2011/03/court-ruling-opens-new-can-of-worms-over-old-firm-sectarianism/ In a case back in 2011, Devine* proved to the sheriff that the IRA was a republican military organisation and not sectarian in intent. Here is a quote from that article ... "The historian then goes on about the specifics of the Act which we have quoted below: It states that an offence is aggravated by religious prejudice if : (a) “the offender evinces towards the victim (if any) of the offence malice and ill-will based on the victim’s membership or presumed membership of a religious group, or of a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation; or (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards members of a religious group, or of a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation, based on their membership of that group”. The key question was – Could vocal approval of the IRA in a public place be considered not simply a potential breach of the peace but one aggravated by religious prejudice? The sheriff listened to the evidence, including my own* statement, and the various submissions on this question both by defence lawyers and the Crown. He concluded that doubtless some members of the public might take offence at songs being sung in support of an organisation which the UK Government considered to be a terrorist movement. Nonetheless, he ruled that the IRA was a republican military organisation, was not sectarian in intent and that those who showed support for it, real or rhetorical, were not showing “malice or ill will towards members of a religious group’’. The charge could not therefore be sustained under the 2003 legislation and the accusation of a religiously aggravated breach was dismissed." This ruling means that under the 2003 legislation the religiously aggravated breach was unable to get a conviction. Now does that ruling still apply under the OBA or Terrorism Act? Where are we, when we sing the third line, evincing or showing motivation of malice or ill-will towards anyone? Is the ****** brotherhood a religious or a political organization? Who has proved in a court of law that f****n is derogatory, either dejure or de facto? Ergo, how can we be banned from using it? The eastenders might say that one man's savage is another man's freedom-fighter.
  12. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    I remember seeing a clip on U-Tube where Professor Tom Devine made the case for f****n being an offensive word, but for the life of me I can't find it. No one from our side defended against his evidence. I guess if you sang it and covered your mouth at the right time the police would have a hard time convicting you. If the club has taken reasonable precautions 'in advising the fans on sectarian and discriminatory behaviour', we know that from Celtic's previous charges by the SFA that this is all that is required by the club, then who can charge whom with what?
  13. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    Look at post #29 BH. The Appeal Board partially upheld Kapl's appeal but according to the Scotsman's article, although it issued a stronger warning it still did not outright ban TBB. SDM did that at the meeting he had with the fan reps. Assuming that the article is a true statement of the letter that SDM received. You would think that if there was an outright ban, then the club would publish it in face of these repeated attempts by the fans to bring back the TBB.
  14. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    No doubt. Then you had the others like Archbishop Conti, probably Reid and the east enders all working away behind the scenes to coerce SDM to make their warning appear to the fans like a ban. Has anyone actually seen the letter. There had to be more than Dingwall at the meeting with SDM and if they seen the letter why won't they tell us what it contained. This sounds like Bomber and 'show us the deeds'.
  15. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    Bluedell, how did you get to see the letter? Were you part of a fan representation or something?
  16. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    Bluedell you're right, in that there was an appeal but the letter did not clearly state that TBB should be banned. SDM did that all on his own ... http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rangers-warn-fans-as-uefa-issues-fine-and-severe-rebuke-1-1119276 A couple of quotes from the article ... 1. RANGERS last night accepted the decision by UEFA's Appeals Body to partially uphold the appeal against their Control and Disciplinary Body's not guilty verdict served on the Ibrox club for alleged discriminatory chants by their supporters during their Champions League last-16 tie against Villarreal. 2. A UEFA statement said Rangers have been "severely warned about their responsibility for any future misconduct by their fans in relation to sectarian and discriminatory behaviour." Now I've rooted around and I can't find the actual UEFA verdict on the partial appeal. If we go by what the article is saying then it does not specifically ban TBB. It warns Rangers about their responsibility for future misconduct. The best I could find was that the part that UEFA found sectarian was all of the add-ons, like FTP. The club was warned to make public announcements to curtail these chants and because of this I believe that SDM decided to stamp out TBB as well. His decision, not UEFA's or the SFA's. However, by banning TBB he got his message through to the fan groups about all of the add-ons. As a further point of interest I found this story ... http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=aut/news/newsid=1653423.html UEFA and Austria mourn Gerhard Kapl Published: Wednesday 27 July 2011, 9.08CET Former referee and UEFA disciplinary inspector Gerhard Kapl has passed away at the age of 64, with Austrian Football Association president Leo Windtner leading the tributes. Anyway, time for a bit of shuteye.
  17. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    I had read that quote on RM as well, but this is a statement from SDM. However, the quote from the UEFA report - "Given this social and historical context UEFA cannot demand an end to behaviour that has been tolerated for years." - belies SDM 's statement. I contend that in his desperation to be seen to be doing something he slanted his interpretation of what UEFA had sent him to include this song being banned when it did not have to be. Only the add-ons were sectarian in nature. He sacrificed the fans favourite anthem to appease the bheasts. Perhaps he thought it politically expedient to do so.
  18. barca72
    It's lamentable the low numbers of crowds in Scottish football, but I must admit it looks good on those two.
  19. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    DB, I was curious about this published ban so I googled it looking for answers. The first one I came across was the BBC report after the Villareal game in 2006 ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/5064472.stm Here is a quote from that report ... "The meeting followed receipt of Uefa's written grounds for fining Rangers following the tie against Villarreal. Uefa also ordered Rangers to "anounce measurable targets in order to reduce sectarian behaviour amongst its supporters". When you read the article it does NOT show you how UEFA banned TBB just that Rangers had to cut down on sectarian behaviour. The banning at this point of TBB seems to be a BBC slant on this issue ( we have subsequently seen how their reporting on all matters of Rangers is incredibly skewed ). Secondly I found this report from a more non-biased source. Your last sentence in post #20 is backed up when you see who is making noises about us - Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow Mario Conti. http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06052conti.shtml Here is a quote from this article ... "The UEFA report concluded that such songs were part of "Scotland's social and historical background." It declared: "After studying the evidence at hand, as well as the statement of Rangers FC, the Control and Disciplinary Body concedes that the supporters have been singing the 'Billy Boys' for years during national and international matches without either the Scottish football or governmental authorities being able to intervene. The result is that this song is now somewhat tolerated." "Given this social and historical context UEFA cannot demand an end to behaviour that has been tolerated for years." It was the naughty ad-ons that were the problem. Thirdly I give this post from a RM poster ... Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:35 PM A member on Rangerschat tonight has stated he has asked the SFA about the banning of the song and has been told they know nothing about it. The ban was imposed by Rangers, and nobody else. This would appear to prove that this song has neither been banned by UEFA nor the SFA. It was "banned" by SDM and MB because they wanted to show the bully boys at FAIR and elsewhere that they were doing something in the war against sectarianism. This was followed up with the testimony of Professor Tom Devine - undefended by Rangers - in some tribunal and on a BBC programme where he described how saying "******" was bad. Also, I don't buy the argument that we don't want to annoy anyone on the SPFL board as we make our way back up the leagues. They tried to kill us, what else do we need to fear?
  20. barca72
    Here is McMurdo's latest. Quite good actually ... http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/fans-against-decency/ February 15, 2014 by billmcmurdo Fans Against Decency Anyone who doubts that Celtic FC has a problem with bigotry in its support need only look at the singles chart for downloads, which has the repulsive “Roll of Honour” coming in at number 24. The song is being hyped by FAC – Fans Against Criminalisation – a group of Celtic fans who are seeking to defy the Scottish Government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 . Under this Act, this song is prohibited from being sung at football matches. The whole episode is a reminder of the embarrassing problem Celtic have with a politically active element of their support. Many observers believe that those in this faction have virtually taken over Celtic in that the club is terrified to confront them. Decent Celtic fans have communicated to me that they despise what this faction is doing to the club and some parents refuse to take their kids to Celtic games while the uber section is there. Disgusting pro-IRA chants can clearly be heard at games involving Celtic and there have been several incidents of violence and thuggery at grounds in recent months, including Dens Park and Fir Park. FAC’s promotion of Roll of Honour is a defiant gesture towards the Scottish Government and a clear mockery of the law. My personal view on this piece of legislation is that it is flawed but I would always urge every fan of any club to obey the law. The ball is very much now in the court of the Scottish Government to see if they will uphold their own law or capitulate to those who glorify terrorist murderers. I have no doubt that this campaign of disobedience will continue from the likes of FAC and those who are behind them. That campaign is certainly not going to remain civil and it is decidedly not decent. One good thing about the song going up the charts is it lets a watching world know what levels of sectarianism and bigotry there are in our troubled country. Another benefit is that, while there will no doubt be a brief sense of sneering triumphalism experienced by the cretins who support this song and its ideology, the entire matter will only help harden the determination of decent football people in England to ensure that Celtic never achieve their stated objective of playing in the league setup down south. If there is any intelligence or gumption left in the custodians of this club, there has to be the recognition that such rancid displays of devotion to cowardly killers is both a massive deterrent to English football welcoming Celtic and a dangerous flaunting of defiance to a UEFA which has already had to punish Celtic for overt politicisation in its support. Clearly those Celtic fans who are behind all this have zero respect for the rule of law and that should be deeply worrying to the authorities in this country. The irony of a song title which speaks of honour sung to praise cowards who had none is not lost on decent people. It’s time for the decent people of Scotland to send a message that we do not want the despicable culture of terrorist glorification here.
  21. barca72
    Did you fall asleep at the keyboard, Andy?
  22. barca72

    Hullo Hullo

    barca72 replied to Gribz's topic in Rangers Chat

    This was done because SDM shat it. He thought he would be in trouble with UEFA's new push for anti sectarianism. Professor Tom Devine gave a spiel on a BBC program about why ****** was wrongly used in our anthem. Nobody challenged him so the whole thing was taboo. Dingwall supposedly seen the letter from SDM banning the thing, but nobody else has. I would think that we could sing the original again, if the RFFF was prepared to back us up with legal representation and our own professor to argue the political parts. When we won the case we could publish TBB - after all the die has been set by the scum - on itunes with the proceeds going to Rangers or the RFFF. Is there something that the rest of us don't know that would prevent this. Bad arguments can be reversed.
  23. barca72
    Is there anyone in Scotland prepared to write to their MP or MSP, or even Police Scotland about this song being objectionable and having it dealt with under the OBA? Alternatively could it not be handled under the Terrorism Act as showing overt support for a banned terrorist organization? As long as there is no pressure to act put on these austere bodies and individuals then nothing will happen. Sinn Fein has no say in how the U.K. is run.
  24. barca72
    Enough said then.
  25. barca72
    May 9 2009. Kenny Millar sends over a cross about 4' high and slices the defence and fools Boruc then dips down for Davis to thump home.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.