RiverBear7

I don't usually like to blame refs, and I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything, but a few fucking awful decisions have made this game what it is and probably cost us any points.

Sure i'm the same as everyone in not being able to believe that pish.

If Stokes was a yellow, Jack's was a yellow at MOST. Stokes should have been off in my opinion.

Killed the rest of the half. If Rangers can get back in to it though, it will really show something of the team though.

Interested - who would take a draw at this stage?

Cracking game.

That's the best i've seen Vardy play. Really smart touches and decisive finishing.

I think Lacazette and Giroud are Arsenal's best bets. Lacazette is like a duck to water, but Giroud still has something to offer. I think they'd be a really interesting partnership. Always the same from Arsenal though - brilliant at times, but not sustainable. You could see tonight why they won't win the league.

RB7, as said before, I don't generally get involved in these debates as they mostly come down to opinion, which like the saying goes is like erseholes - everyone has one. But to address this specific point you make, they don't NEED to know about our welfare state - a whole industry, some state subsidised and some charity fed is there to explain exactly what they are entitled to. We have thousands there to attend to their needs. I know this because I have 3 members of my family earning a fairly decent living doing just that.

I'm not in any way saying that migrants are living in luxury sitting watching 53 inch tv's . They survive, which is exactly why they say they were coming here in the first place.

I "survive" too while juggling the usual bills with no job and not a penny from the state.

This is practically all true. Going back to a former point, while I think they have it at least as hard as anyone here, it just bothers me that they are the people that some people want to cast adrift first. They have more in common with you than many other better off people, as you kinda alluded to. It's divide and conquer, as ever.

To be clear, i'm not saying I know you're opinion at all, and referring to some people's opinions in general.

I detest racism and always treat people as I would like to be treated myself. I work beside two gay guys and get on fine with them. But when I'm at the football I am there exclusively to support Rangers. Sexuality, diversity and inclusion don't matter - you're either a Bear or you aren't.

 

As for people getting upset about words, it shows how utterly feminised Britain has become. I get called an old git and a Hun by younger lads and Tims at work, I couldn't care less. We're British...stiff upper lip and all that.

That's fine, for you. But why not keep your own stiff upper lip and let the club and fans talk about the stuff? I can't see how it negatively affects you, so what's the problem?

No they're attempting to get to the UK as we are seen as being a soft touch where the streets are paved with gold. To have reached Calais they would have had to cross France and in all probability several other EU countries. The Dublin Agreement requires asylum seekers to claim asylum in the country they enter the EU, if they fail to meet the criteria for being granted asylum in all other EU countries why the hell should they end up here?

 

You must see a different BBC to me because anytime I've seen the BBC ( and ITN and SKY for that matter) report on the Calais camps is I see is the bleeding heart left wing liberal agenda of Asylum Seekers = Good, UK Government = Bad, variety being promulgated.

 

I'm not against immigration at all, I've been dealing with immigrants on a daily basis for over 20 years but immigration must be managed.

I know this is off topic, but you've just ignored my reply from earlier.

I won't go on and on about it, but think about the law, think about people's knowledge of the law, think about the reality of the situation, and think about how governments can respond to it.

Many people give up their life savings to be smuggled because it's the only way. In those cases, they go where the smuggler says and that's it.

Every European -including especially Britain - are hostile to asylum seekers and make it very hard for them to settle. They easily find reasons to move them on to other areas or countries and so people end up in camps.

They don't fucking know about the welfare state in most cases, and they certainly benefit from it less than native Brits when they get here.

I'm not the authority on this, but as stated before, I work in integration so I am something of an expert. I see and talk to people who have lost everything, lost friends and family and have had nowhere to call home in months. Some of them end up in Britain.

This is why my original post here called on Rangers to work with asylum seekers actually. When they arrive in Glasgow, they live in Govan in the first instance. Imagine a whole part new wave of Rangers fans who love the club and feel welcome.

Can we not just go to the football and support Rangers?

 

RiverBear7 seems very intent on promoting diversity but is invisible on the Peter Campbell memorial thread and other threads which don't question anti-Rangers problems...makes me wonder.

 

Sexuality doesn't really come into sports and we're Scottish, so nasty words should deflect off our thick skin.

To answer your first question - yes we can. For you that might be it, for me, it is that and more. A football club is part of a community and so, in my view, should have high standards.

As for the other thread - I don't really post unless I have something specific to add. Yes the memorial being vandalised is terrible.

Personally I have no need to know the sexuality of a player it is what he is doing on the field that interests me. whether he was gay or heterosexual has no bearing if he is doing his job on the park.

I agree almost totally with that. A player's sexuality doesn't matter, and I do only care about their performance. Saying that, there is clearly an issue with people feeling comfortable being themselves within football, and so any efforts to reduce that are very welcome. If a player decides to make the brave decision to come out, and empower others, it could really help people.

I mentioned earlier here that Spurs are one of my favourite English teams and White Hart Lane is one of the few non-Ibrox stadiums i've seen club football at.

I understand why this happens, stadiums are status assets and money machines. I think in Britain is started when City got their new stadium. That acquisition attracted silly money investment and essentially won them the league.

While I obviously want Spurs to do well, and this will help, but this stadium seems a bit soul-less to me.

Great performance. Dunfermline looked really bad at times, but you can only beat how you play. Fantastic resul and a good warm up for games to come.

I'm not sure this discussion is representative of most Rangers fans to be honest. Homosexuality was actually illegal as recently as 1980. It has since become socially acceptable and it's now actually illegal to openly express any kind of moral opposition to it, but a lot of us were born before 1980 and still have the values which were ingrained in us as children.

 

I do know a few gay men through work though and none of them are remotely interested in football, or competitive sports in general.

 

They have more varied interests. Why is this a problem? I suspect it's more to do with Corporate Football trying to attract a section of the community who have a higher disposable income than the rest of us, than it has any true relevance to 'equality.' Like everything else these days..

I can agree that there may be a money aspect here - i.e. more people buying shirts/tickets etc, but it's just the decent thing to do in my opinion. We've already discussed here how it is near certain that their are professional players in Scotland who haven't been able to come out, and how similarly, football grounds may not seem that welcoming to LGBT fans without us reaching out to them.

 

I just wonder what the feelings are about this film that has gone viral.

I personally have mixed feelings on it. While I understand the message is that it tells kids it is okay to have these feelings it may also cause some to chase people who do not have these feelings and cause problems. It may also be promoting kids to have these feelings. As I say I get the main message I am just not sure everything will work out as in the film.

Ach Pete, now I've seen the film you meant to post i'm afraid I have to disagree quite strongly with you again, though I know your concerns are sincere.

When you say "it may also cause some to chase people who do not have these feelings and cause problems" isn't that just as likely between a boy and a girl? The kids in this film are obviously crushed by not being able to share their feelings/facing the reaction from their school-mates, and this seems a fair reflection of being 'closeted'.

The part about 'promoting' kids to have these feelings? I'm afraid that's a really strange concern for a few reasons. One, why would they do that? But most importantly, you can't 'promote' sexuality intentionally or not - I know some people disagree with this, but you don't 'choose' your sexuality and you can't help who you fancy or like.

The film is pretty chintzy, but I thought it was beautifully done.

Thanks River bear I take your point and if your work covers that area I also accept what you say,but I still think we should be looking after our own and then if things are working then help immigrants,refugees etc.

I know that many are fleeing countries because of oppression and do feel sorry for them,but they come here because Britain is a soft touch.

We are but a small island nation and the gold paved streets don't exist as can be seen by the savage cuts in services we take for granted.

Personally I am not a rich person but my wife and I own our own flat,but due to the local housing association having bought over four flats in the tenement find ourselves living next door to what I would call undesirables.

Having worked since 1968 with less than 6 months unemployed in that time and still working part-time to keep me in a routine so the changes I have seen in Britain over the years don't always bode well for me.

Anyway this thread has a long way to run and this will probably be my last post on the matter.

Regarding your first point, fair enough. I disagree in the sense that I think if we had a fairer society, we could help everyone who needs it more, but that's a political opinion.

As to your second point, I wrote about it elsewhere, but I think it's important to show the reality. 1) People very rarely 'choose' Britain. In some cases, such as 'family reunion' cases, I suppose they do, but mostly, it's where they end up - maybe their smuggler has arranged it that way, or they have been moved from govt to govt in Europe and eventually ended up here, and so on and so on. European govts have an agreement to take certain numbers of asylum seekers/refugees, but they will do whatever they can to refuse them so they don't take many more than promised. Essentially bureaucratic reasons like incorrect paperwork, that sort of thing. There are infinite different routes to safety, they are all hard, and some of them end in Britain.

As for Britain being a soft touch - I can tell you with confidence that intimidation is practically UK policy when it comes to asylum seekers. The Home Office try to confuse and trick claimants so they can refuse their claim, and somewhere between 30-40% of denials are found to be wrong decisions. Asylum seekers get a pittance and live under very strict rules, and when they become a refugee, the system dictates that most automatically become homeless for a time because they are kicked off home office support and have to apply for everything again. For both asylum seekers and refugees, there is very little support to integrate and succeed here, and the bulk of support comes from charities.

I won't go on about this anymore because I know I might sound a bit preachy, and also it's off topic, but I just think the facts of the matter are so much worse than what you'll read in a paper or hear your mate say etc etc.

The "native British people" as you describe them have paid into the collective pot via their NIC's. I have former tenants who haven't set foot in the UK in over 9 years still receiving Child Benefit.

 

 

 

If things were distributed less freely they wouldn't be making a beeline for the UK in the first place. Refugees and Asylum Seekers are supposed to register and apply as soon as they enter the EU, those in the camps in Calais are not fleeing persecution they're attempting to flee France. Brexit will not make a blind bit of difference to that either.

I don't want to get too in to this because it's off topic for the thread, but it is another truth that immigrants of all types overall contribute more than they take. The NHS is a great example of what they contribute. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but overall, I think it's a positive.

As for the UK being a destination, it is for some I suppose, but it's not because of the welfare state - people from so far away generally aren't aware of it, at least in any detail. When you're being bombed or persecuted, the last thing you're worrying about is how much you can get from the Home Office/DWP. Europe treats people fleeing like problems, and it isn't uncommon for people to be moved around from country to country without much say in it. Yes, you are supposed to register as soon as you arrive, but this isn't always easy to do, and govts will find any excuse to pass you on to another country or back to your own. There are lots of factors that push people around Europe, and it's important to remember that. Countries like France will find any excuse not to take people, and there are very complex rules which make it easy for them to justify refusing people. The UK is much the same (I could go in to more detail about the Home Office makes the UK a literally hostile place to asylum seekers), so people find themselves in makeshift camps, between countries, and looking for anywhere to go that's safe and secure.

It's not a case of fleeing France, or any other European country, it's just finding somewhere safe. I absolutely won't entertain the idea that these people aren't genuinely fleeing seriously dangerous situations. I've spoken to too many people through my work have lost everything and have the scars to prove it to know the reality.

You're right about Brexit though and it not helping the refugee issue as it is a totally separate issue.

But Scottish MP's are voting down English only laws.. works both ways mate

Recently nippy kicked English Sunday trading into touch as it would harm Scotland. Biggest lot of shit. Drives me nuts only have shops open till 4pm on Sunday dowm here..

At least Scotland can make a lot of power for themselves.. thr English don't have this luxury.

That's partly true. The vote on Sunday trading was a disappointment, but it is unsual. SNP generally abstain from English-only issues. The problem is deciding which is an English-only issue. With Sunday trading, I think they got it wrong.

Scotland can make a lot of decisions for themselves, and i'm certainly not against an English Parliament (i'm pro-indy after all), but I certainly don't think the English are the ones with the less power here. England has the majority of seats out of the whole UK, so English MP's carry the most weight. If English MP's want something introduced or changed, they can do it even if every Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish MP opposed it.

A lot of this is down to personal beliefs, though, and I respect yours.

Re immigrants I feel that too much is thrown their way when we have many of our own country persons living on breadline,having to put up with work assessment etc. who should be benefiting more than immigrants.

I work professionally with immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and while you may not believe me, I can tell you categorically that it is untrue that they get anything more than native British people, and in many cases, get much much less while the govt get away with it due to their vulnerability.

You may not agree with that, which I guess is up to you (though I would urge you to ask more questions which I may be able to answer, or research yourself away from the tabloid media), but even if you don't agree, I will share an old joke that I like:

Around a table is a rich man, a working class man, and an immigrant. There are 10 biscuits on the table. The rich man takes 9 of them and then nudges the working class man and says "watch out, that immigrant is here for your biscuit".

That's the point, working class Brits and immigrants face largely the same challenges, and they are caused by huge inequality in our society. I'm not calling for communism or anything, but if things were distributed more fairly, people coming to this country wouldn't seem like a threat at all.

I've read the thread again and I can't see where anyone told Pete, or anyone else, they weren't "allowed" certain opinions.

This, to me, is a key point. When choosing words to describe each other, it's not unreasonable, or stifling of free speech to question discriminatory speech. No one can really stop you from doing so, but there is a responsibility that comes along with free speech that allows people to respond and challenge it.

When words like 'homo' are used, I care more about the person whose whole identity has been mocked, more than someone who wants to say it without challenge just because they can. I know that largely wasn't the case here, but until you can actually show me a reasonable example of being literally stopped from using words like this, I would give the free speech argument a rest.

It's not a gate it's a hell of a lot more.

 

This is really fantastic

Thanks for the update guys! I never heard about the autism friendly gate - that's really great!

My younger brother is mentally handicapped. I try to take him to a game every time I am in the UK. A couple of years ago a Rangers fan in the Govan rear where we were sat referred to him as a "mong" - it was all I could do to not smash his face in.

 

People don't understand some disabilities and haven't a clue how hurtful they can be.

 

On accessibility I have had the pleasure of chatting with FS where he sits at Ibrox and must say that the viewing area, if it were me, would have me re-considering attending games because I dislike being at pitch level. Would be nice if the club could provide alternative viewpoints for wheelchair fans.

Slight tangent: my sister is severely autistic, and though she doesn't have any interest in football, I think it would be cool to have an autism-friendly gate or something where there is no pressure/rush to get in and it's all a bit less overwhelming and no fear of judgement. Not sure how well that would work, but might be worth an experiment.

I just want to say that this has generally been a really positive thread. A few nasty comments, and a few innocently misguided ones, but a good show of support, which i'm very glad to hear.

With that in mind, for those of you wanting to promote this sort of thing a bit more, there is a facebook group, Rangers FC - Together With Pride, which aims humbly to try and forward some of these causes at the club.

Just went back on the thread to see what's being posted!

 

Aaaarrrrgh!!! I'm astonished mate, I think you are overreacting to a bit of banter.

 

No. I won't be watching the link you posted, being as I'm not interested in where 'I fit in' because you have already explained it with the primary school dig.

Don't get what you're afraid of in watching the suggestion. Anchorman reached out with his perspective and instead of just ignoring it if that's what you wanted, you had to make a big deal out of it?

I don't like the new penalty shoot out format to start with.

 

Arsenal started well but Chelsea would have probably held on with 11 men. Its a match that's hard to judge but Chelsea need a few additions to the squad or they wont win the title. Costa is a big miss for them.

 

I will probably do a premier league preview later this week.

Yes I agree about the ABBA pens. There isn't a perfect format, but I prefer ABAB.

Think there's a generational aspect to all this, I've long stopped bothering about what was back in the day known as "poofs" and "lizzies". Just because someone grew up in a world that was different to the one we now inhabit doesn't make them a bigot.

 

Its not my cup of tea but each to their own and all that, if a man loves another man or a woman another woman who am I to decry them?

 

One thing I can't quite grasp is the current gender fluidity stuff which seems utter bollox to me along with the "man gives birth" nonsense.

I don't think men giving birth is really a thing.

I'm kinda half on your side with the gender fluidity. I think things don't always have to be labelled, especially if the person themself isn't sure.nHowever, I generally go back to the 'live and let live' principle. I'm not going through it, so I can't fully understand the issues others face

That's a pretty lazy comparison as not all disabilities are visible in fact the vast majority aren't, that's a mindset that some of us have spent years trying Rangers to change.

Actually you're right, many disabilities aren't visible. Please accept my apologies. When I was answering, I was thinking primarily of wheelchair accessibility, but of course there are other issues.