BC2

There was an over reaction to Gascoigne simulating flute playing, but comparisons end there. It was not a gesture of his faith or really any faith. It referenced the orange order which has political AND religious goals and has a constitution which many regard as blatantly anti-catholic. craig is correct that blessing oneself can be inciteful but I have to repeat that this depends entirely on the audience being religious bigots in the first place. In Boruc's case you also have to remember that he does this at every ground and match and it is therefore difficult to sustain the allegation of deliberately inciting rival fans. This is another distinction from Gascoigne who did not mimic flute playing at any other ground and was clearly trying to further endear himself with the Rangers supporters and/or wind up the Celtic fans. Jimmy - you're sounding seriously intolerant. Firstly the 'party tunes' are not religious. Which part of FT* celebrates protestantism? Secondly why should I as a proud atheist take afront at an individual blessing himself or indeed any other religious gesture? Why can't I just recognise that there are lots of different religions and cultures and accept this? Finally the solution to widespread religious intolerance is increased tolerance rather than hiding behind closed doors. Gribz - you will not be surprised to learn that I, as an atheist, agree but lots of footballers and other individuals have their lucky rituals.

Jimmy - you may be surprised to learn I am a proud atheist, and probably find the Catholic Church even more abhorrent than the Church of Scotland, although it is a pretty close call. While I wasn't aware of the Church of Rome's orders, I do not accept that this is the reason behind blessing oneself causing offence in Scotland. With the exception of Northern Ireland (perhaps the exception that proves the rule), it does not cause offence in any other country in the world, catholic or otherwise. Argueing that Boruc does not HAVE to bless himself misses the point. It is not, to any normal and tolerant individual, an offensive gesture, and your question is only relevant if it is asked to a bigot.

Ally and craig Thanks for replying. As I said at the start of my post, I don't condone players making inflammatory gestures at rival fans. Whatever happened in February 2006, Boruc has certainly been guilty of this on other occasions. The highest profile incident, however, was Ibrox and something stank (in my opinion) about the whole thing. Regarding how good a keeper Boruc is, you have to remember what Celtic fans are used to. He is easily the best Celtic goalkeeper of my lifetime. While he does have weaknesses (crosses), he is a superb shot stopper and has the same arrogance that made Schmeicel (?spelling) and Goram the great keepers they were. Finally craig I have to say that there are very few places in the world where it would be possible to cause offence by blessing oneself, and I think it says far more about the offended than the alleged offender. It is rather like a racist being offended at the sight of a coloured person.

A worthwhile read as usual. While not in any way condoning inflammatory gestures from players to rival fans, I do have to take issue with the 'incident' at Ibrox during Celtic's victory on February 12th 2006. The first I heard of this was on the Radio Clyde phone-in after the match. The caller was a Rangers supporter appalled that Boruc had crossed himself while looking at the Rangers fans. No mention of any other gestures. The next I heard of it was from John McMillan of the Rangers Supporters' Association. ââ?¬Å?I didnââ?¬â?¢t see the incident, but I was aware of a commotion behind the goal and many fans on the supportersââ?¬â?¢ bus saw Boruc cross himself and were angered by it. I find it difficult to believe he didnââ?¬â?¢t know what he was doing. We have a particular situation in Scotland where people are sensitive to such actions. I donââ?¬â?¢t think we should expect foreign players to be aware of this, nor are they doing it in an inflammatory manner. But some players in Scotland should be reminded of what could happen.ââ?¬Â (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article620937.ece) No mention of any other gestures. The next strange fact about this affair is that Boruc was cautioned partly on the basis of closed circuit television cameras footage of the reaction of the Rangers fans. They went bananas, therefore he must have done something truly awful. The only problem with this is that when Boruc was filmed in December at Ibrox blessing himself and only blessing himself, the reaction was identical. Indeed the only 'evidence' against Boruc was the statements taken from a number of Rangers fans, hardly impartial witnesses. I am also troubled by the fact that the nature of the alleged 'other gestures' kept on changing from genuflection to a GIRUY to a 'come on', an inconsistency mirrored by the Crown Office taking three attemots to get their statement right. I am deeply sceptical that Boruc did anything other than bless himself that day. I am absolutely certain that even if he did, many Rangers supporters were far more angered by the blessing than anything else.

I may not speak for all Celtic fans, but for what it's worth this song does not wind me up in the slightest. As Cammy has said, it is true, and big Jock and the club should have dealt with it better. To say nothing was done about is is not correct - Torbett was thrown out of the club - but I cannot disagree that somebody within the club, probably a board member rather than the manager, had a duty to inform the authorities. The only partial defence I can offer is that while child abuse did occur in the 60s and 70s, society did not really recognise this fact in the way it does now, and I suspect it was frequently covered up. And before anyone else does, I will immediately name the catholic church in this context. Not sure of the relevance of Celtic dealing with Torbett's daughter after his conviction. Ultimately I would agree with the majority of posters on this topic - I don't think fans who sing this come away with any credit, and am not sure it even achieves the goal of winding up the Celtic fans. Also does big Jock get no credit from Rangers fans for guiding the national team to 2 World Cups, dying in the act?

Who knows, but surely it would be a surprise if Rangers signed two strikers on the last day for European elligibility.

Thanks jonc. Nice to know I'm not imagining things. I think the fact he wanted to change his username backs up perfectly what I've been saying - the connotations of the word 'hun' have changed over the last few years.

I assume if this true then the Naismith deal is off. As a Celtic fan I would rather see you sign Cousin. I don't know very much about him but his scoring record is execrable.

I don't doubt your word Frankie, but please don't doubt mine. I accept there is no Steve the Hun looking in your members list tonight, but he certainly used to be a member. I'm not 100% certain Steve was his name but 'the Hun' bit was definitely correct. As I've said to Cammy above, I agree h** is now as unacceptable as f*****, but I don't think that was always the case.

Let me try and help with your confusion Cammy. If the badge of the fans club you had discovered during your extensive research had come from any other city in the world, I would concede you might have a point. It surely is not a coincidence, however, that the one example you can come up with involves the very city where the word was first used in a context that few in the west of Scotland know anything about. I will try to find out for sure, but I have little doubt this group are genuinely making reference to their 19th century predecessors than trying to be ironic. On a related theme, in a previous incarnation;) I distinctly recall a member on here with the user name something (?Steve) the hun.

I suppose the next question is if you DO think f***** and Killie blood are no different, then should we be more accepting of f***** blood or more condemning of Killie blood? Worth bearing in mind how sickened many of us (myself included) were with the treatment of your coloured players last night.

No sir, you are wrong. This is the James Connelly march. You may regard him as a f*****, but this does not make it a f***** walk.

And the other definition in my Chambers definition is 'a member of an association of Irish people founded in New York in 1857 for the overthrow of the British government in Ireland'. Surely you will accept that it is not a coincidence that the badge you have posted represents a New York Celtic fans group. Surely you will also accept that the vast majority of people using the word have no knowledge of 19th century American-Irish history, and even in the unlikely event they do, thay are not referring to this when they use the word.

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or tongue in cheek calscot, but either way you make a good point. Why is it worse to hate somebody because of their colour or religion than for the football team they support?

We'll need to agree to differ about the first point. I am not aware of any such movement. Are you referring to the New York group from a couple of hundred years ago? My Chambers dictionary gives the main definition of f***** as a derogatory term for a catholic. 'Orange' is not defined in these terms, but as I said above, it can be equally sectarian but does depend more on context. Your point about the IRA is well made and one I have previously argued about with Celtic fans. I accept that 'hun' is now unacceptable but don't think it started out life this way. Other examples of language evolving would include retarded, spast1c and Pak1 all of which were acceptable 20 or 30 years ago. Was Bryce Curdy not a linkman on STV about 20 years ago?

Had also heard this, source not top drawer however.

Cammy - who is Bryce Cundy? Like you, I have always taken offence when the IRA are mentioned. I have had these discussions on Celtic forums. I am of an age (39) when I associate the IRA with turning on my TV to watch the news and another IRA atrocity has been committed resulting in the death of numerous innocent civilians. To play devil's advocate for a moment however, the IRA have not always been a terrorist organisation and many of the songs originated from a time when seeing the IRA as romantic freedom fighters seems less abhorent. Also in the last couple of years they have lain down their arms (at least officially). Coming from somebody with no strong views on Irish politics, it also has to be said that the British Army (for whom I have enormous respect) have not always been beyond criticism with Bloody Sunday as the worst example. 'Hun' is interesting in this debate. It's a good example of language evolving. I no longer us the word as it is now arguably sectarian and more definitely offensive but I believe it started out life as fairly lighthearted, similar to you referring to Celtic fans as 'the unwashed' for example. I agree 'animals' is offensive although absolutely not sectarian. There is also a debate, however, to be had around 'orange'. 'Sad orange bastards', sang twice a year (if we're winning) is undeniably sectarian and inexcusable, but the word does depend on context and is not the equivalent of '******' which is simply a derogatory word for a catholic. To illustrate my point, we do not, to the best of my knowledge, have a Fenain Order or ****** walks. To me 'orange' has associations with extreme potestantism and intolerance. In my opinion, and I am sure you will disagree, DOBs often, but not always, was making reference to this rather than a general anti-protestant connotation. I have a protestant friend who supports Morton, and he refers to Rangers as the DOBs! I am in total agreement regarding the bastardised songs you give as examples. They are unequivocally sectarian. I can honestly say, however, that I cannot recall the last time I heard either of your examples. Finally I agree it will be a long hard season regarding this. One consolation for Rangers is that I think the SFA's decision to broaden their investigations to anything offensive is to Rangers' advantage. Had this been limited to strictly defined sectarianis I honestly believe Rangers would find themselves more isolated. I am not pretending it does not exist at Celtic, but I believe it is the exception (as I've tried to illustrate above) rather than the rule which at least until recently was the case at Ibrox. It is also not a problem isolated to the old firm as proven by the Hearts reaction to the minute's silence following the death of the pope. Rangers, as a club, have taken action and deserve credit although more is needed. Finally all is not well on the playing front at Parkhead. I predict you will be smiling come May, if not before, although I obviously hope I'm wrong.

But the SFA, in their wisdom, have said they will take action on anything deemed to be offensive, sectarian or otherwise.

I'll come clean immediately and state that I am a Celtic fan. A good article and there's little I disagree with. This whole 'offensive' issue is an utter nonsense and will prove impossibe to police. When does banter end and offence start? Are Aberdeen fans, for example, seriously traumatised by bestiality taunts? I would like to make one point. I accept there is nothing inherently wrong with singing The Sash and Derry's Walls (without add-ons), but are rebel songs then also acceptable by the same arguement? Let me state categorically that I personally find them offensive (and utterly irrelevant to football) but it is inevitable they will be heard on Saturday at Falkirk and equally inevitable that people connected with your club will pounce on this. We need far greater clarity around all of this but I doubt we'll get it.

craig - I don't disagree with a word of this. To suggest Rangers should pay over the odds to put Naismith out his misery IS nonsense, but no more so than the notion that Killie should accept less than THEY feel the player is worth for similar reasons. This is the arguement appearing repeatedly in the media. I note both the Edinburgh clubs are reported to have put in official bids. An interesting few days ahead.

PS I will be very surprised if he is not a Rangers player next month.

calscot - if you read my post carefully you will realise that I was NOT criticising Rangers, but rather the usual pro-establishment media respone. If Rangers think Naismith is worth 2p, then they are perfectly entitled to bid 2p, or even 1p for that matter. Kilmarnock, on the other hand, are equally entitled to reject the bid because they think he is worth 3p, or even �£2M for that matter. My only criticism of your club in this affair is that their opening bad was barely a quarter of what they have since recognised as the true value of the player. Transfers are always subject to a degree of bartering but many would see Rangers opening bid as taking the piss and merely trying to unsettle the player. Some might argue that this has been a recent pattern regarding Rangers transfer targets. My main issue, however, is that Darryl King, BFDJ et al are making Kilmarnock out to be bad guys for not selling a player they think is worth more than Rangers have offered. Apparently Naismith is emotionally traumatised. Surely if that is the case Rangers should simply match Kilmarnock's evaluation. It is as strong an arguement as the one that says Killie should sell him for less than they think he is worth.

Good, fair and balanced replies, and I accept that Rangers are not the only party who has let themself down here. Craig - I'm sorry but I'll be quite happy to win the league comfortably again, but I realise this is probably wishful thinking - most Celtic fans forget it has been 33 years since they last won 3 titles in a row.

I'll come clean immediately - I'm a timposter, but not one to deliberately wind anybody up, although I do like a good debate. I'm intrigued by the media treatment of Naismith's possible transfers to Rangers. This may not reflect the views on here or amongst other Rangers fans. If you were NOT selling your house which you thought was worth, let's say �£200,000, and you were initially offered �£40,000 and after three more offers �£75,000 now and the possibility of �£75,000 later depending on certain conditions, would you sell? The precise figures may not be quite right, but I'm sure you get the drift. PS Good site.