Search the Community

STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/

seen this on facebook Just got back from a weeks leave in Sorrento, while mooching around the shops with the wife I was stopped by a young lady who admired my Rangers t shirt. She was an American from Atlanta who was a fellow Ger fan. We got chatting how come I supported Rangers & i asked her in return, why she did? "Oh my uncle Walter used to manage the club" !! we spent the next hour or so chatting about the club, the one thing that came out was that Uncle Walter doesn't do politics hence he appears to distance himself from certain individuals every now & again and wont be used as a pawn. His only interest is for the good of the club.

Further to the announcement on 10 September 2013, the Company confirms that the Board's discussions have been continuing with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"). The Company can confirm that the Requisitioners have withdrawn the Requisition which put forward resolutions for the removal of Craig Mather, Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart as Directors of the Company and for the appointment Frank Blin and Paul Murray as Non-Executive Directors of the Company on the condition that the Company convenes its Annual General Meeting to be held no later than 31 October 2013. The Company confirms that all of the current Directors remain in office and that it is not appointing any additional Directors save that as previously announced, the Company confirms that it continues to actively seek to appoint a new Chairman. Further announcements will be made as appropriate. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e...entId=11707849

by Andy McGowan | Contributor Agenda, propaganda, hand wringers, apologists—just a few of the terms thrown around in the Ibrox game of buzzword bingo. The irony of our current situation is that the men throwing these words around seem to be the ones with an end game that isn’t in the best of interests Rangers Football Club. The end game The Copland Road Organization is hoping for? Simply, the best outcome for Rangers and our fans. We have nothing to gain from the current board being cleared out other than that it is what Rangers need to move forward. There’s no blazers or freebees in our future; only attacks from the lunatic fringe backing the current board to all ends for a variety of reasons. The attacks on anyone willing to speak up against our dysfunctional boardroom will no doubt ramp up in the weeks to come with the return of Jack Irvine. I’m sure most Rangers fans hadn’t heard the name Jack Irvine until a few weeks ago, but everyone will remember Media House, the utterly useless PR firm who ‘represented’ us for years under both David Murray and Craig Whyte. Media House oversaw years of dignified silence under Murray while Rangers' name was dragged through the mud by the more extreme elements of the mainstream media. They also helped Whyte act like a playground bully, threatening to sue anyone who dared to reveal the truth about the pretend Billionaire during his time at Ibrox. With the club’s fresh start in SFL 3 it was a chance to reshape the club on and off the park. While we struggled on the park last season we done our best work off it in many years. For all the things Charles Green did wrong one thing he did right was to see the potential of Rangers’ self-produced media. Over the last 12-18 months the work done by staff at Rangers, RTV in particular, has been nothing short of exceptional. From documentaries such as "The Rising," to match day coverage for UK viewers and a fantastic interview with Ally McCoist, it is clear our in-house media had improved substantially. The club even used the official website to deal with propaganda being spread by Celtic bloggers determined to destabilize the club with rehashed versions of the same rumours they have been touting for years which previously went unchallenged. There is also a common misconception of the job Jim Traynor is doing at Ibrox. While our in-house media begun to thrive there was a boardroom war brewing in the mainstream media with both sides of the boardroom using certain newspapers to leak stories about each other. Traynor seems to have spent the majority of his time at Ibrox putting out fires started by our board, mainly those started by Charles Green himself. Jim Traynor worked wonders to have The Sun hold the Craig Whyte/Sevco ownership story to give the club a chance to reply only for Green to start a race row by calling Imran Ahmad a paki the very next day in the same paper. In the few months he’s been here, despite the constant fire fighting, Jim Traynor has done more for Rangers than Media House done in years. There is a lot of criticism of Jim Traynor because we don’t see him in front of the camera more often, but he is the Director of Communications — you don’t often see the Director appear in the movie he is directing. It’s not his job to be in front of the camera. It is his job to try and control how the club presents itself, one that he is doing exceptionally well under the most difficult of circumstances. Such is the good job Traynor and our staff have done and the poor job Media House have done that Rangers finally and correctly decided to part ways with the firm much to the delight of anyone who has witnessed their limp-wristed attempts to act on behalf of the club over the years. Sadly, it was a delight that didn’t last long. Despite the best efforts of the men they had been using to attack McColl et al public opinion had turned on Charles Green, Imran Ahmad and the board members who will now put aside what’s best for Rangers in an attempt to hold their positions. They needed a real attack dog, the ramblings of a discredited blogger shouting about politics weren’t cutting it and so Jack’s back. Jack wasted no time in telling us he’s here to represent Rangers and not the board. He certainly has a funny way of defending the club. His cosy relationship with Paul McConville and Scotzine’s Andy Muirhead—two men who have been slandering the club with half-truths and full lies for years now—should set alarm bells ringing for anyone unconvinced about this man’s intentions. There is something very strange about the relationship between these two Rangers haters, Irvine and his PR pawn Bill McMurdo. McConville even has a link on his website dedicated just to McMurdo which is akin to a link on the Rangers website to the Celtic store. Are these the men Rangers fans are willing to put their faith in? Jack has certainly made a great start to his defence of Rangers with the surfacing of his email from the Whyte era insulting the greatest ever Ranger John Greig and showing complete disdain for the fans. It certainly made for an interesting dynamic between Irvine and McMurdo who had to play down the incident on his blog. It’s not often you see the monkey defending the organ grinder. I’m no public relations guru but when the PR man immediately becomes the story, a highly negative story at that, then there is something deeply wrong. The PR campaign is about to be ramped up by Media House and I would urge fans to take everything they read with a pinch of salt. Taking these men at face value is incredibly dangerous for the future of Rangers football club. The recent Craig Mather interview for example which taken in and of itself seemed to be a forthright and robust piece until you look deeper as Shane Nicholson did. Curiously, Irvine chose to do an interview with Scotzine, a website which is nothing but a diet Celtic fanzine. You’d have to ask Jack why he chose Scotzine, a website even McMurdo describes as ‘ESPECIALLY media hostile to Rangers’ to speak through rather than one of the several Rangers websites who would be willing to sit down with him. Maybe he’s worried he wouldn’t be given such an easy ride from those who have Rangers at heart. I have doubts about Jim McColl, Paul Murray and Frank Blin but those doubts pale in comparison to the doubts I have about the men currently in our boardroom. Our CEO speaks well but he’s all talk — he’s tried to play both sides of this divide and now we can all see him for what he is: A yes man who will flip-flop on a moment's notice in an attempt to keep his position at Ibrox secure. We have a Financial Director who isn’t entirely sure how much money we have and a host of undesirables who manage to scare away two chairmen in Malcolm Murray and Walter Smith who, whatever your opinion of them, undeniably have Rangers' best interests at heart. And these men chose to be represented by a firm who did nothing but damage to us for years and who choose to keep the company of Celtic bloggers. We are in danger of seeing all the good work done by our media department undone by Media House who are already peering over their shoulders and who will have full control of our Club's output if Jim Traynor walks away like the many men who put Rangers first already have. There may yet be the opportunity to broker an uneasy peace between the current board and the group demanding change which is potentially a far more palatable outcome than our AGM being hijacked as a vehicle for both sides of the civil war, neither of which is without fault. It is looking more likely we will see a compromise from both sides but however it plays out whoever ends up sitting on the board it changes nothing with regards to Jack Irvine and Media House. Fans demanded the removal of Charles Green as a consultant when he became the story and the fans need to do the same again before Jack Irvine is allowed the time he needs to cause more havoc for the Club. He is here to muddy the waters as much as possible before the AGM and he will do so at the expense of Rangers and its fans in an attempt to keep the current board in power. Don't buy into it. For the avoidance of doubt Jack Irvine does not speak for Rangers. http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/09/and-they-couldnt-prevent-jack-from.html

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/164607084

August 31, 2013 The Team We All Adore When all the dust has settled I expect the Easdales to be the power at Ibrox for a considerable time. My understanding is that the Easdales see themselves as being the proprietors of Rangers and are in it for the long haul. Sandy Easdale’s take-up of the remaining Charles Green shares is a big indicator of his intent to become Mr Rangers. Easdale is like a kid in the sweetie shop at Ibrox. He loves the club and has dreams of his boy running out in the Light Blue one day. This love of the Gers, something every bluenose will resonate with, will not cloud Sandy Easdale’s business judgement. He and his brother James have built up a bus and taxi empire nudging towards £100 million by being shrewd operators and ruthless cost-cutters. It is no secret that the Easdales are open to selling this business and this would allow them to concentrate on running Rangers. Sandy Easdale sees Rangers as a club with the potential to be on the same levels as top EPL teams and bigger than even the likes of Arsenal. It is this potential which brought investment from institutional investors at the IPO. Of course, there are those who are not happy at the Easdales’ involvement but that will have zero effect on their determination to turn the club into a formidable force once more. For those detractors, I have bad news and good news. The bad news is I understand that the Easdales want to make a lot of money from Rangers Football Club. The good news is they are in it for the long haul and will likely only cash out when Rangers is the big player in European football the Easdales plan the club to be. Whatever you think about it, the Easdales intend to be the future of Rangers Football Club. It’s a brave man who will stand in their way. What is needed at Ibrox is stability in the boardroom and at the club in general. Manager Ally McCoist doesn’t need the hassles generated by the civil war being waged at Ibrox. This is why I have backed the present regime. Craig Mather and the other directors need to be given time to prove their worth at the club. Now that Charles Green and Imran Ahmad are effectively out of the equation, those left must be given the opportunity to make their mark. It seems incredible that certain people are touting the involvement of three men who probably don’t have £2 worth of shares between them, while decrying people who are investing serious money to have shares in the club. That is the crazy world Rangers supporters are living in these days. It’s time we understood that backing the club means backing everything at the club. Including the directors. It’s a bit like being British. I have said some unkind things about Prime Minister David Cameron on this blog lately and I make no apologies. But I would oppose any attempt to oust him that was based on injustice and lies. And I would back Cameron to the hilt if he was making a genuine stand for British interests. I didn’t agree with everything Charles Green did. If you read my blogs quite some time ago I was both sceptical and critical while others were fawning over him and giving him honorary memberships in their fan groups. There comes a point where you just have to get behind your team and be an actual supporter, not a detractor. This doesn’t mean you must be sycophantic or ignore issues; it just means you learn to deal with things in a dignified manner. Like many other Rangers fans I lament the lack of unity in our support. It saddens me to say it but I think there are some people in our fanbase who thrive on discord and sedition. These people just don’t want unity. They do, however, want power and for other bears to be obedient to them. On this blog I have consistently said my loyalty is to Rangers. While Charles Green was there it was to the Green regime at Ibrox because that was who was running the club. Now that Green has left the building it is to the present regime. As I have said in this piece, I fully expect the future at Rangers to be the Easdales and they will have my backing. That might change and I might not like the way they do things. The point of it all is if you don’t like the present regime there are honourable ways to go about it and dishonourable ways. There are ways that don’t damage the club and ways that do. The present McColl takeover gambit is, for me, a destabilising and destructive move. Hence my opposition. As I keep saying, it should be Rangers first. We pride ourselves on tacking “Loyal” to ourselves as an identity. Time for Rangers fans to really be The Rangers Loyal. Not the Rangers Insurrection. One more thing. Let’s remember what it’s really all about. The eleven men on the park in the famous Royal Blue. ______________________________________________________________________

Has a bit of me. me, me running through it/

In times of trouble, the crown fits old Rangers King - The Herald 'IT would be reasonable to suppose that the Glasgow experience of John Barnes would have been enough to make the former Liverpool player shrink at a Scottish accent and positively bridle at the mere mention of the game north of the border. However, Barnes speaks of his brief tenure as Celtic manager with some insight and maintains a strong connection to the Scottish game through his role as a media pundit and his friendship with Dave King, the Scottish businessman and former Rangers director based in South Africa, who has been vocal in the unfolding turmoil at the Ibrox club. Barnes travels the world in his role as a football analyst and met King in South Africa, where the former England internationalist comments on both Barclays Premier League and Champions League matches. He believes strongly that King has a role to play as the power struggle continues at Rangers. The businessman lost £20m when the club was owned by Sir David Murray and has warned they could be in administration by Christmas. Barnes believes he was a victim of that high-spending Rangers, too, with his coaching career bludgeoned by the reality that he was facing greater resources at Ibrox. He also insists King could be the leader who rescues Rangers from in-fighting and brings the club back to the top league and to financial stability. Barnes lasted from June 1999 to February 2000 as Celtic manager, with a Scottish Cup defeat by Inverness Caledonian Thistle precipitating his demise. "I was not there long enough to learn a lot," he says, his sunny demeanour failing to disguise the disappointment of a opportunity that proved short-lived. Barnes was part of a "dream ticket", coming to Celtic Park in tandem with Kenny Dalglish, his one-time manager at Liverpool. He dismisses any notions he was an innocent thrown into the jungle of Scottish football. "Nothing happened there that I did not expect. I knew the expectations were high. I knew we were second to Rangers and if that continued it would mean that it would not work out." Standing in the BT studios in London where he is about to give his opinions on the English game, he pauses to reflect on the state of Scottish football then and now. "I think a lot of people are now looking at the dynamics of the game north of the border and saying it is not as easy at it seems. In those days it was very different. In those days David Murray was spending a lot of money. Rangers had better players and much more money than Celtic. They were signing such as Joerg Albertz and Michael Mols to join the good players they already had." Barnes was consumed by the imperative to defeat Rangers but with lesser resources. "It is strange to see how it has gone with Celtic and Rangers," he says. "The dynamic is different and it shows the way Celtic were doing things from a financial point of view was the right way and the necessary way to do it." He states bluntly: "Rangers are paying the price for that period." His friendship with King has given him the inside story on his rivals when he was manager of Celtic. King, who took up his role as a non-executive director in March 2000, began his formal association with Rangers as Barnes was ending his with Celtic but King and he have become close after regular trips to South Africa. "He tells me stories of what it was like back then," says Barnes, now 49 and travelling to the Middle East and elsewhere to talk football. "He tells me of the money Rangers were spending and that has impacted on where they are now. It is shame because they're a huge club." In March, King announced his intention to sue Murray, stating: "I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of £20m the basis of non-disclosure by the then chairman, David Murray, of Rangers' true financial position as far back as 2000." Murray said he would vigorously contend any such claim if and when it was lodged. The past at Rangers is thus clouded with much animosity for King, but Barnes is optimistic on the club's future if his friend becomes involved. "He would be good for Rangers because he is a fan. He wants what is right for Rangers. It is a huge brand that can be hugely successful and it will be successful once again. It may take a few years but the more they can have people like him involved from a footballing perspective the better. If you are a football supporter, you want people like him to involved in football." Barnes, too, would like to become more closely involved in football. He managed the Jamaican national team for a season, taking them to first place in the 2008 Caribbean Championships, and then joined Tranmere Rovers in June 2009, lasting just five months before being sacked. "I would love to get back into management but it is hard. There are a lot of ex-managers who want to get back in. Fortunately, I have the opportunity to do TV work but if something came up I would definitely look at it again." And what of a return to Scotland? Has his experience at Celtic soured him? "It was fantastic up there," he says. "Obviously, the politics were not great but the football was good. I loved it, " he says.' ______________________________________________ Excuses excuses Barnes. Not like those associated with the dark side to revise history is it?. There's no denying we spent a lot of money overall during the DA era. However, lets take a look at transfer activity of the season in question.... The Poor Wee Souls Players In Stiliyan Petrov £2.8m Ian Wright - Free? Rafael Scheidt - £5m Eyal Berkovic - £5.75m Olivier Tébily - £1.25m Players Out Craig Burley - £3m Phil O'Donnell - Free Simon Donnelly - Free Darren Jackson - Free Total loss = £11.8m Us Dirty Cheats that Bought Our Tainted Titles Players In Dariusz Adamczuk - Free Michael Mols - £4m Tero Penttilä - £0.3m Thomas Myhre Loan Billy Dodds - £1.3m Tugay Kerimoğlu £1.3m Players Out Theo Snelders - Retired Jonas Thern - Retired Luigi Riccio - Released Stephane Guivarc'h - £3.4m Charlie Miller - £0.45m Antti Niemi - £0.4m Derek McInnes - £0.3m Ian Ferguson - Free Gabriel Amato - £3.75m Colin Hendry - £0.75m Paul McKnight - Nominal Total profit = £2,150,000 Except Albertz had already been with us for 2 seasons at that point. The simple fact of the matter is that we had a good team and good manager while they had John Barnes who was about as shite as Scheidt.

Unbelievable. http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/for-the-avoidance-of-doubt/

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/281-toxic-mediahouse-and-rangers-toxic-board Once again the Rangers fans have been treated with contempt by a Rangers board which continues to show it is totally out of touch of with the fans and often reality. The re-appointment of Jack Irvine as a PR adviser to the club, just weeks after his organisation, Mediahouse, were correctly removed from their position, smacks of the same type of weakness which saw Charles Green return as a consultant. Mediahouse have had a long and troubled association with Rangers. Their meddling in the club’s affairs did not stop when they were recently removed from their position as the club’s media advisers. When Jim Traynor said recently that “Jack Irvine does not speak for this club” he was correct, and he is still correct despite their reappointment by Craig Mather. Jack Irvine and Mediahouse have never represented Rangers Football Club. They have represented a number of regimes, including the toxic Craig Whyte, which have failed to put the club and the fans first. It is clear from the nature of this appointment that Irvine will be representing the wishes of a board of directors who are desperate to cling to power and not the interests of the club we all love. Let us not forget the record of Mediahouse during their time at our club. They presided over a complete capitulation to UEFA, and the authorities in general, over the behaviour of our fans. Yes, at times that behaviour was indefensible but Mediahouse allowed every single negative headline, and at times baseless accusations, to go unchallenged. The term “dignified silence” has often been used to describe Rangers’ inability to challenge our critics even when we had the opportunity. That was a policy which continued during the years Mediahouse called the shots. Only recently have we seen any attempt to fight back. It is no coincidence that the fight back stepped up in pace after the removal of Mediahouse. Documents leaked on the internet suggest that Jack Irvine actively assisted Craig Whyte in gaining control of Rangers by suppressing negative media stories which may have brought his past to light ahead of his takeover. This was done whilst Mediahouse were supposed to be working for Rangers. Mediahouse set up the recent interviews which saw Charles Green make a mockery of the club and its board. The board know this. They themselves condemned Green’s actions in front of the fans at a recent meeting, but have now seen fit to hire the company who put that strategy in place. I know of nobody who can name a single benefit that Mediahouse have brought to our club, although I am sure Craig Whyte was delighted with Irvine’s assistance. However, it is worth noting that none of this is Mediahouse or Jack Irvine’s fault. They do what they are paid to do. If someone like Whyte wants to ensure their interests are put before those of the club, and they are willing to pay, then Mediahouse will accommodate them. It is not up to Mediahouse to do anything other than what they are paid for. The issue is that once again the club are paying for them to put the interests of individuals ahead of those of the club. It was recently announced that Jim McColl was willing to forgo a GM in order to roll the institutional investor proposals for the club’s board into the AGM. This was seen as a sensible approach to save the club up to £80k because it would allow just one meeting of shareholders to take place rather than two. The board have taken that money (and probably considerably more of the club’s money) and handed it to Mediahouse. They have hired expensive media consultants to defend their own jobs and positions at the club. It is reprehensible behaviour but entirely in keeping with the actions of a board which thought that bringing back Charles Green was a good idea and then had to perform an embarassing U-turn. It is incredible to think that, in a week which saw Craig Mather’s ham fisted attempt to take credit for the decision to combine the GM and AGM, we see the club squander money on yet another unnecessary expense. Does Mather not appreciate how this looks? He cannot stop the GM without the consent of McColl’s group of shareholders, yet tries to take credit and then goes out and spends the money that could have been saved. We already have a Director of Communications in Jim Traynor. Someone who has not only been taking the fight to our detractors with the BBC Scotland ban and legal letters to the Daily Record, but who has also been improving our club media platforms immeasurably. The club also already pay media consultants Keith Bishop Associates, brought in by Charles Green as part of the Sports Direct deal but who do no obvious work for the club, £140k a year. So what will Mediahouse be doing for Rangers Football Club? The answer is nothing - they will be working for the individuals on the board. The club will simply be paying for it. Perhaps Brian Stockbridge could have used some of his £200k bonus for the team winning the league last year to pay for the defence of his untenable position at the club? Perhaps Craig Mather could have used some of his £300k salary to pay for this attempt to keep him in position? Instead, the money will come from the dwindling reserves of season ticket money that our loyal fans have poured into the club. Mather’s actions are particularly disappointing. He had an opportunity to show he was the right man for the CEO position, and that he could whip this hapless board into shape, but he capitulated over the return of Green. He has now done the same with the return of Mediahouse. It is also now clear that this board are willing to stoop to any level to cling to power. Jack Irvine’s first move was to issue a veiled threat to the representatives of concerned shareholders. It was disgraceful. Is this what Rangers Football Club has been lowered to? Can this board not win the day based on their own record, their plans and their reputations? Exactly what type of “media scrutiny” is it that Jack Irvine would like to subject people to? Has he answered to the board for the allegations, via leaked emails, that he ensured a smooth path to power for Craig Whyte by supressing negative media stories about him? Did they even ask Irvine to explain this before they rehired him to defend their own interests? Are the board comfortable with Irvine’s approach? I wonder how comfortable they would be with their own actions being subjected to “media scrutiny”? Irvine, it appears, will do literally anything to spread his message. That extends to the promotion of the work of Paul McConville. McConville is a Celtic blogger (and discredited lawyer) who has spent the last two years attacking the club at every opportunity, but Irvine was happy to promote a recent article of his on Twitter because it suited his own agenda. Principle is left at the door. Furthermore this move raises questions of exactly who is running the club. It is clear that the board did not consult Jim Traynor before reappointing Mediahouse - this despite Mather, Hart and Stockbridge all nodding their approval for allowing Traynor to direct media strategy at the recent fan meeting. Traynor appealed for the directors to allow him to do his job and they have failed to do what they committed to. This is becoming a regular occurrence for them. Say one thing and do another. Who would blame Traynor if he decides to follow Walter Smith and walk away from this toxic board? Jack Irvine is the Easdale family spokesman. Do the Easdales now run Rangers Football Club? Did his work for them, despite its eccentricity, lead to them being appointed again at Rangers? Rumours abound that Sandy Easdale is now taking an active part in the decision making of the club’s directors despite not having a place on the board so it seems an obvious conclusion that Mediahouse are back at their behest. The RST, Assembly and RSA have continued their unified approach and expressed their contempt for this decision and the toxicity of Mediahouse is an issue which seems to unite even the most fractured elements of our support. Is it always going to be up to the fans to explain to this dysfunctional board what is acceptable and what isn’t? What next? Should we expect to see them bring Charles Green back a third time? Nothing this board now do would surprise me. It’s clear that anything goes in their desperation to cling to the power that they regularly abuse. They are beyond contempt and beyond parody. They are also unfit to represent our great football club and I sincerely hope the attempts to remove them are successful. If they are not then our club faces an uncertain future.

One of my all time favourites, a son of Airdrie. Click the link to see the full interview from May last year. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/interview-ian-mcmillan-airdrie-director-and-former-rangers-and-airdrie-forward-1-2319440 Interview: Ian McMillan, Airdrie director and former Rangers and Airdrie forward Ian McMillan remains a director of Airdrie United aged 81. Picture: Robert Perry by ALAN PATTULLO Published on the 26 May 2012 00:00 8 comments Email thisPrint this RELUCTANT star reflects on an enduring bond with Airdrie and life as a part-timer at Ibrox The McMillan family is deep into Olympic countdown mode as the days tick down to the Great Britain women hockey side’s first appointment, at the end of July. Ian McMillan, formerly of Airdrie and Rangers, is the grandfather of Laura Bartlett, one of only two Scots in the squad. He clearly believes she should be the focus of any attention, rather than his octogenarian self. This, however, is the Wee Prime Minister’s own question time. For any sports writer, an hour or so in the company of someone renowned for being one of Scottish football’s gentlemen is a dream assignment. In this version of PMQs there is no braying from across the room to have to endure either, only the pleasant hum of background chatter emitted by McMillan’s golfing crowd, who meet at the Airdrie Golf club each week to put to the world to rights. McMillan himself is slightly anxious. He is concerned that he has not got enough to say, and that, at age 81, no-one will want to read about what his views on the game any longer. He fears he is as relevant to present day football as Harold Macmillan is to contemporary politics. His near-namesake’s occupancy of No 10 Downing Street during the late 1950s and early 60s saw McMillan bestowed with his Wee Prime Minister moniker, one still employed by friends to this day. Having listened to him, however, it is not hard to understand why he is still a director at Airdrie United, as well as honorary president. It would be considered gross negligence if his influence had been lost to the game, and to his hometown club in particular, where he has also served as ball boy, esteemed player, youth coach and, for six and-a-half years in the Seventies, as manager. Sandy Clark, whose career started under McMillan at Airdrie, recalls never having heard the manager swear, something almost unheard of in professional football. That’s not to say he was not sworn at. The notorious Airdrie crowd did not even spare their own, although McMillan, whose managerial tenure included a Texaco Cup final appearance against Derby County and a Scottish Cup final defeat to Celtic, never had it as bad as some. “Do you know the old Broomfield?” he asks. “You had to walk from the pavilion right the way up to the dug-out near the stand, and at half-time and full-time you had to walk all the way round, and if you were losing you would get slaughtered – quite rightly, because some of the games we played were not very clever. “As a manager I got more abuse than as a player,” he adds. “One comment I always had a wee smile at was: ‘I think you should stick to playing McMillan!’” That he appeared for Scotland at all is notable enough. McMillan was a part-time player all his days. While this was not so remarkable in his first ten years as an inside forward with Airdrie, it became something to marvel at as he continued to hold his own after a £10,000 move to Rangers. He was the sole part-time player in a side that reached the semi-finals of the European Cup in 1960. “They could have given me the cold shoulder, but they never did,” he says of his team-mates. “They were very welcoming.” He does concede that working as a chartered surveyor from Monday to Friday did tend to compromise his performances on a Saturday. Given that many Rangers fans of a certain vintage rate McMillan as one of the club’s most under-rated players, it’s possible to wonder just how good he could have been had he been able to train with his team-mates each day, rather than with the youths in the evening? “I had to take wee rests occasionally,” he says. “That is what I maintain, if you are fit and able to do 90 minutes, then you can be a better player. And I think I could have been a better player. I only trained three nights a week as opposed to the others, who trained all week, so I had to rest occasionally in games. That was a fault. “If I had been able to train a bit harder, then looking back I could have been a better player,” he continues. “I could have lasted the game longer, I could have been in the game more often.” He made a conscious decision to remain part-time, and it was the sensible one at the time. He had had two young daughters, Laura and Lesley. The latter is now the mother of Scottish hockey internationalist twins Laura and Kay Bartlett, while the former passed on some of her father’s footballing prowess to Iain, a striker with Livingston. “I was 27 when I moved to Rangers, and I weighed up [whether to go full-time] and it was borderline,” McMillan continues. “If I had been 22 it would a different story. I would have gone full-time then. I had a young family, two wee girls. It was a big decision. I knew that I could get an injury, and be finished. My wife and I sat down and thought: well it is going not too bad the way it is, we will just carry on.” Making things slightly easier was a job switch from one side of West Regent Street in Glasgow to the other. “John Lawrence, who was chairman at Ibrox at the time, asked me to come over and work for him, so I was able to get away for games in Europe,” he says. “Prior to that, it had been difficult.” McMillan was thus free to star in the Ibrox side’s run to the last four of the European Cup, where they came up against Eintracht Frankfurt. “Our trouble was that even when we were abroad we played as if we were playing against Stirling Albion, we just kept going forward,” he recalls. “We were one each against Eintracht Frankfurt at half-time, but you could tell the writing was on the wall. They were a tremendous side. They ran over the top of us in the second-half, beating us 6-1, so the return leg was a bit of a non-event. We were a top side, and they whacked us 6-3 at Ibrox. I was interviewed on television afterwards, and they asked me how I thought Eintracht Frankfurt would do against Real Madrid in the final? Well after that experience, I said, I think they will beat Real Madrid!” Of course, the aristocrats from Madrid defeated the Germans 7-3 at Hampden Park, in one of the best remembered games in football history. McMillan watched on from the stand at Hampden, where he had already made three appearances for Scotland as well as enduring a 7-2 away defeat to England at Wembley. Unusually perhaps, of the six caps he earned with Scotland, five were won out of Airdrie. However, he struggles to make playing for Scotland sound like a happy experience. “We didn’t get good results,” he says. “It was not really as enjoyable as playing with Airdrie, my local club. But Rangers was the best of the lot. Great players, they made it easy for you.” Games against the amateurs of the United States and Denmark were the only ones he won, and McMillan sometimes wondered whether he belonged in such illustrious company as Lawrie Reilly and Gordon Smith. Reilly scored a hat-trick against the States that day at Hampden, in a match described as an “amusing interlude” in Andrew Ward’s Scotland – The Team. Two goals for Scotland within the first ten minutes killed the game as a contest, and the score was 4-0 at half-time. Making a mockery of the self-doubt McMillan says he experienced with Scotland is the late Bob Crampsey’s recollection of the day. Writing in The Scotsman in 1998, the respected football historian noted that “the team that had won 6-0 was never picked again yet I invite you to look in particular at the right wing, Gordon Smith and McMillan, two of the purest footballers this country has produced.” The US, whose centre-half Charlie Colombo wore leather gloves throughout the game, didn’t have a hope, despite an astounding 1-0 victory over England in the 1950 World Cup in Brazil. “They had played England, and beat them, we though oh oh, who do we have here?” remembers McMillan. “We had not a clue about them. Because they had whacked England we thought we need to watch ourselves here. Maybe that was a good thing. If they hadn’t beaten them we might have come out and think it was toffee. If you think that, it can rebound on you.” Still, it’s possible to detect from McMillan that he felt he didn’t belong in a Scotland jersey. “I moved from Airdrie to Rangers, not knowing what was ahead of me, worrying about going from a wee provincial club to a big club. “I maybe had the wrong attitude. You have to be a bit like Jim Baxter was, a wee bit arrogant, a ‘nobody is like yourself’ sort of thing. Instead, McMillan was the complete opposite to Baxter. “I had a slight inferiority complex,” he admits. “It’s not a good thing for a footballer.” McMillan considers Baxter to be the best footballer he played with, but his complaint about his team-mate is a familiar one in that he feels he could have been even better. “I couldn’t believe what I heard he’d been up to on a Friday night when I turned up on the Saturday,” McMillan says. Harold Davis, who played just behind him, is a different story. The Korea war veteran made the best of himself despite horrific wounds sustained in active service with the Black Watch. Recalls McMillan: “At the end of the game you would be in the big bath and you could see the scars on his tummy. You would think: ‘how is he able to full-time football at this level after what he went through?’ That’s the type of man he is. He used to encourage me, if things weren’t going well. “I always maintain that, because he was behind me, I lasted longer at Rangers. Harold won all the balls for me, and I said to him: ‘Harold, I am fine if I get the ball in a bit of space. As soon as you win the ball, I will be looking for it right away’. And that’s how we operated. “Football is all about movement, making space to get away from your opponent. I just needed a second, then I could get the ball under control and use it. That is what I was good at. I could get the ball and take men on and I had good vision, I could pass a decent ball. But I couldn’t header and I couldn’t tackle! I had deficiencies as well as one or two qualities.” His lack of inches meant he relied on his wiles to escape the rough and tumble of the game at the time, and the lightness he displayed on his feet was perhaps partly attributable to the Italian-style football boot both he and Ralph Brand preferred to wear, to the great suspicion of manager Scot Symon. “It didn’t have that bulbous toe which was common at the time,” he says. “You could get the feel of the ball better.” The knocks have, though, caught up with him, leading to a hip replacement 17 years ago which itself now needs replaced. The complaint, he believes, is a consequence of his preference for shielding the ball with what he refers to as his “largish bottom”, and which meant 18 years’ worth of heavy impacts from behind as defenders jostled for the ball. It has curtailed his golf outings, but he will be fit enough to watch from the stands as his granddaughter plays in a second successive Olympic games, this time in a rather more convenient location than Beijing. “I think I have been allocated a ticket,” he smiles, clearly proud that the Olympic ideals he espoused throughout his career – “to my mind there was nothing better, whether you had won or lost, than coming in after a hard game of football” – are still being upheld in a talented family.

Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992

As expected: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11686782

MOVES to remove Rangers directors from the club's board are to be pursued despite attempts to hold out an olive branch to influential investors trying to push through the radical changes. Billionaire Jim McColl - who headed a group of shareholders demanding a extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to force the removal of chief executive Craig Mather, financial director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive director Bryan Smart - has said they remain committed to it. The meeting would also seek the appointment of Paul Murray and Frank Blin, the former executive chairman of accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, to the board. On July 31, those behind the calls for change at the top level said that if directors did not convene within 21 days they would organise the EGM and bill the club. The deadline expires today. The club has opened the door for Mr Blin to join the board in an attempt to head off an EGM, but do not want Mr Murray. The move on Tuesday appeared to echo Mr McColl's desire to see people with more corporate boardroom experience at that level in the club. But a spokeswoman for Mr McColl said: "He says we are pursuing the requisition that was presented to the club." Fans continue to support the removal of the directors because of further financial issues at the club. A fans' meeting earlier this month learned there was only £10 in the club's account, despite raising £22 million from a share offering and more than 70,000 season ticket sales over two seasons. Fans had already reacted angrily after the club was plunged into a civil war with the resurrection of Mr Green as a consultant earlier this month, after resigning as chief executive in April amid a probe into his alleged links to the disgraced oldco club's owner Craig Whyte. The board has agreed Mr Green's involvement with the club is to be ended. Drew Roberton, general secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, said: "What the board have done is a starting point, to try to reach an agreement, but if the meeting has to go ahead, it has to go ahead." http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...board.21937899

On Saturday, not long after the Stranraer match, the club published a statement entitled, “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. The article was written under the tag, ‘Rangers Football Club’, although almost everyone acknowledges that it was probably penned by the club’s Director of Communications, James Traynor. Although the statement was generally well received by Rangers fans, it was more noticeable for what it didn’t say, rather than what it actually did say. Whilst the statement is welcome, it is long overdue, and I doubt if it will have any substantive or meaningful impact on the serial Rangers haters who constantly misrepresent and malign our club. I suspect that most Rangers fans consider the statement to be much too terse, and would have preferred a more comprehensive, robust and forceful statement. Certainly given the nature and content of the statement, it is noticeable for its failure to comment on the serial offenders at Rangers who consistently utilise the local anti-Rangers media to further their own agendas, or censure those Rangers bloggers who are aligned with one side or another in the current Boardroom wars, and who often give interviews to the local rags, including the Daily Record. In fact it fails to confront the leaks that are clearly emanating from Ibrox, and it doesn’t ‘sit well’ with the fact that our board of directors, club officials and employees regularly utilise the local rags for their own ends. Fine words from James Traynor – but actions speak much louder than words! It is for that reason I have penned an alternative version of “For the Avoidance of Doubt”. For The Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative version) “Rangers Football Club is aware of wildly inaccurate stories circulating on various websites and would like fans to know that these flights of fancy will be monitored by our lawyers. Where it is considered necessary, we will instruct our lawyers to initiate legal action against the owners and administrators of any website, or any other media vehicle, that publishes (or disseminates by any other means) material that is inaccurate, libellous or misrepresents the club’s position in any way. The club will keep fans advised of any action initiated as a consequence of this monitoring process and will provide regular updates on the club’s official platforms. In particular, our lawyers are examining a malicious piece which seems to suggest that the club does not own its facilities. That suggestion is, of course, utter nonsense, and the club wishes to make it unequivocally clear that the club owns all of its facilities in their entirety. We urge Rangers fans to treat these idiotic and lumbering articles with the contempt they deserve. Better still, ignore them completely. However, we acknowledge that many fans may wish to analyse and assess them and, where appropriate, respond to their misrepresentations by means of their own websites and blogs. Indeed the club recognises the very practical assistance provided by the fans in monitoring these articles and responding in circumstances where the club is, either, unable or unwilling to do so. But we must also stress we cannot waste time responding publicly to every blog or ridiculous claim against the club, although we acknowledge the magnificent work that has been done by Rangers fans in challenging the reprehensible Rangers Tax Case blog; BBC Scotland’s consistent misrepresentations and its inaccurate and biased reporting; the vindictive and malign blogs of those such as Alex-Thomson of Channel 4, Phil Four Names, Paul McConville and, of course, those journalists in the mainstream media such as Graham Spiers, Tom English, Keith Jackson etc. who continually misrepresent, and unreasonably, attack our club. There is also a dangerous proliferation of anonymous obsessive’s on various social media sites and we will not give them any credence, although we will continue to monitor the material they publish and seek to identify the source of any leaks, particularly where specific material is proven to be genuine correspondence emanating from Rangers Football Club. In such circumstances we will take appropriate action against any director or officer of the club who is found responsible for leaking confidential information including, if necessary, precautionary suspension and summary dismissal. Nor can we react to every journalist and publication that appears to pursue an anti-Rangers agenda; publications such as the Daily Record which today boasts yet another headline which does not accurately reflect what manager Ally McCoist said in his press conference yesterday. The paper’s intent is clear, and we urge our fans to see it for what it is, as we urge those prominent bloggers who are closely aligned to the Club, and prepared to give interviews to the Daily Record, and provide them with information relating to the business of our board, its shareholders and the club’s operations, to desist forthwith. In this regard, the club will make every effort to ensure that no member of its board, any shareholder, club official or employee will provide information to, or give interviews to, the Daily Record or any of the other recognised anti- Rangers media. If Rangers fans want the truth they will find it only on the club’s official platforms, and we will make every effort to ensure that, from this point onward, there is substantive and meaningful information available to fans on the club’s platforms in relation to current anti-Rangers news stories, statements that misrepresent the club’s stated position and those that are causing significant concern to the fans. This is particularly relevant given the current boardroom upheavals. Finally, Jack Irvine of Media House does not speak for this Club, although we can confirm that he and Media House currently represent the interests of the Easdale brothers who are major shareholders in Rangers Football Club.”

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/155-mccoll-the-messiah-some-key-questions From a cursory look across the various forums this sunny Wednesday morning, I note Jim McColl et al appears to be requesting EGM support from the Rangers supporters who are shareholders (apparently around 12% of the whole). Fair enough and not an unexpected development but this is actually an important issue so please allow me to labour the point somewhat. First of all, I'd fancy, under normal circumstances Jim McColl would be exactly the kind of investor and/or board member and/or outright owner our fans would literally carry up the marble staircase to victory. He's substantially rich, apparently a genuine fan and his business reputation is clearly impressive given his various successes. What's not to like? Unfortunately, as we know, the situation at Ibrox is far from normal and McColl’s influence with specific regard to Rangers has hardly been impressive in recent times: 1. McColl has been involved with previous failed bids – including an aborted attempt at fan ownership in conjunction with the RST and purportedly a rejected post-D&P deadline bid for the club along with Walter Smith last year. Has he learned from these experiences? 2. McColl has always come across as reluctant at best and quirky to a fault when it comes to Rangers. Sure, a football club can’t be seen as a sound investment by someone used to making money rather than losing it but, if he’s a fan, then his involvement would only ever be an emotional one anyway. Where does he draw the line between personal concern and business? 3. Fan trust of anyone involved is at an all-time low. The most recent regimes from Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte have failed completely whilst the current incumbents are struggling to retain supporter backing with a variety of poor decisions. Thus, anyone who wants to control Rangers has to accept public scrutiny will be higher than anything they’ll have experienced before. Does that fit with McColl’s preference for remaining in the background? 4. His current share-holding is hardly impressive (even if he may have the backing of others). No-one knows just how many shares McColl owns but it must be lower than the LSE-notifiable 3%. Is that reflective of his overall interest or just someone who prefers to stay under the radar? Just how much money is he willing to spend? 5. McColl and/or his group have never made their plans clear and, in fact, it's impossible to tell from one day to the next if they want to buy the club and/or if they just want to be a short-term controlling bloc to ensure ‘effective’ ownership (perhaps via a new share issue) is transferred to someone else like Dave King. How exactly do they see the club’s financial future? All these valid questions means, instead of having the automatic backing of a huge majority of supporters (and indeed other shareholders), many people are - quite rightly - less than clear about what he's offering. Ergo, to make calls for fan backing without being completely open on his intentions is not the best strategy in my opinion. Indeed, it could be said he’s suffering from the same problems the Blue Knights stumbled into last year; namely failing to grasp supporter attention amidst a variety of strategic errors. To conclude, I'll say again: Jim McColl should be the right man for the job, but the very fact we have doubters (based on constructive criticism rather than daft stuff about his politics), doesn't reflect well on his efforts so far. Thus, I'd argue that McColl still has a bit of work to do if he wants to be successful; even if the fact he's come this far suggests he's clearly confident. However, if it's a straight choice between a Charles Green and a Frank Blin along with an Imran Ahmad and a Jim McColl, I don't see many fans opting for the former. Of course, as always, it's not as simple as that so McColl and his group would be well advised to avoid complacency and/or assume fan backing. If not, he only needs to phone Paul Murray to release what over-confidence can do to your reputation. What Rangers fans want more than anything is a well-run, self-sustainable club. If McColl can provide that, then great but instead of hiding from the debate on how this can happen, why not show the support why you’re the right man for the job. That’s real leadership quality and, if the plans are viable, then backing would be a given. Over to you, Jim…

David Oâ??Connor is president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/david_o_connor_the_law_is_now_clearly_defined_1_1979321 ''Thereâ??s not been a lot said about the second part of the bill that will allow closer policing of social media networks, but a lot of the problems that weâ??re seeing are now moving away from the public place like the High Street or Main Street and into the back room or bedroom.'' Sounds more like the old East Germany than part of the UK.

Iâ??m going to stick my brass neck out here and do something that appears to be highly unfashionable these days. Iâ??m going to stick up for that loud, colourful, at times controversial band of Celtic supporters known as the Green Brigade. And this is from someone, before my cyberspace friends start foaming at the mouth, who utterly deplores all IRA chanting inside football grounds. If you believe some contemporary accounts of the Green Brigade â?? in the main supplied by those who scarcely know them or see them â?? they congregate on that north stand at Celtic Park and boom out pro-IRA chants from start to finish. There is presently a fad among Rangers supporters, at times whipped up into a frenzied outrage on Twitter and elsewhere, to have the Green Brigade endlessly and continuously bawling â??Up the Raâ? at matches. The fact that these observers are rarely there to see or witness such allegations deters them not in the slightest. The latest example weâ??ve had of this fiction was at Inverness on Saturday. By general consent â?? and we were all ears â?? in the early minutes of the match a rendition of â??Up the RAâ? whimpered then petered out over a duration of ten seconds among a small section of the visiting Celtic support. But how was this being portrayed later by those who now spend their lives with agonised ears pinned to their radios? Why, it was a festival of pro-IRA chanting in Inverness. It boomed out continuously. I mean, they ask incredulously, how can anyone deny it? This whole â??offensive chanting at footballâ? debate has become a wearying charade of fiction, name-calling and points-scoring. And, right now, the group of supporters who are being most traduced by it all are the so-called Green Brigade. For what it is worth, last week I wrote that this group have certain members among them who can be crass in their chanting. I first wrote about the Celtic supportâ??s â??pro-IRA issueâ? six years ago, and I donâ??t believe Iâ??ve been alone in so doing. Moreover, I lose little sleep over whether anyone wants to call this type of chanting â??politicalâ? or â??sectarianâ?. Who cares for the hermeneutics, if most of us deem it to be offensive? Yet the Green Brigade, far from booming out the sort of chants I would detest, in my experience have done anything but. In at least four or five games I have attended at Celtic Park this season, their contribution to the atmosphere has been terrific: their loud, tribal chants being flung back and forth across the stadium. It is an utter fiction, perpetrated by some who lie awake at night obsessing over such matters, that the Green Brigade is stocked to the gunnels with pro-IRA choristers. It was fascinating, and at times comical, listening to Neil Lennon on this very subject the other day. Lennon, in the main, evidently thinks that the Green Brigade are fantastic. â??The colour, the atmosphere and the joy they bring to our games is brilliant,â? the Celtic manager told us on Friday. Hang on, Neil. You were supposed to be condemning them. Oh, right. In a fit of counter-balance Lennon also sought to condemn â??offensive chantingâ? that the Celtic supporters might produce, arguing that such chants â??dragged the club through the mudâ?, which they do. Lennonâ??s position in regard to the Green Brigade is not uncomplicated. Many of them, like him, espouse the world view of Irish Republicanism. Lennon claims that his politics are â??privateâ? but they havenâ??t always been so. He comes from a social, cultural and political strand of the Irish saga that chimes with many Celtic supporters. It was due to this and much more that, while speaking impressively on Friday on the subject of chanting and the Green Brigade, the Celtic manager could scarcely help himself in expressing his admiration for these supporters. The Green Brigade, for my part, hardly have a thing in common with me. But what I do know is that their repertoire, while not being impeccable, is not in the slightest way a catalogue of offensive songs inside Celtic Park. To believe this, you really have to have a pre-ordained and fixed view of them, which is one of contempt. On the odd occasion at Celtic Park, as in Inverness on Saturday, when this group does chime up offensively, it only serves to insult its wider expression and humour. It also allows the Green Brigade to be so grossly misrepresented, as we are presently finding.

Hi All, I work for a production company called VBS, we're an independent company and we broadcast films on our own website / youtube, etc to a regular audience of around 5 million. We normally go to places like North Korea, Libya, Congo to make films but we want to make one around the current situation in Scottish football, politics, law... We see the mainstream media seem not to be trusted when talking about the new Offensive Behaviour Bill, as a lot of people think they have some kind of agenda. We'd like to talk to regular fans on how they see it. Why they think the Bill has been brought in, whether it's needed, what agenda they think people are pushing. I think people outside of Scotland (including ourselves) are quite perplexed about what's going on, so I want to speak to some people firsthand. I'm going to be in Glasgow tomorrow (Friday 18th) and Saturday with no cameras, meeting interested folk. If you have a view to air, or know of someone who you think would appreciate an approach, please send me a DM and I'll get back to you. All the best and thanks for your time, especially Frankie who's been very helpful, Chris

November 5th, 2011 | Author: Gerry The Power of Black and White Scotland Gerry Hassan The Scotsman, November 5th 2011 Scottish political debate is characterised and marred by a host of difficult divides and fractures. There is anti-Nationalist Labour hatred; the rage of the so-called â??cybernatsâ??; and a widespread, almost national sport of anti-Toryism. All of these are part of a Scottish problem which we see not only in our politics, but also across society, culture and football. Why do large parts of the Labour Party so virulently hate the SNP? And why do part of the Nationalist community, â??the cybernatsâ?? think it appropriate to conduct themselves the way they do? The former have used a politics of fear and negativity for years against the Nationalists, while the latter believe they are taking a stand against an omnipotent unionist establishment which is biased against them. We can look for answers in each tradition. Labour until this year saw one of their main tasks as defending the self-preservation society they had built. In Scottish nationalism there is commonly a sense of self-righteousness and belief in one â??trueâ?? way. One reason regularly put forward for the vitriol is the lack of substantive difference between Labour and SNP bar independence. Something more is at work than this. I think that part of the problem is that Labour and SNP, even beyond the zealots on each side, donâ??t understand each other and so donâ??t understand what motivates their political passions and involvement. This is why they find it easy to attribute negative motivations to their opponents. Whatâ??s more, there is a profound asymmetry between the two in that Labour, the long dominant culture, has reacted with fury to being challenged by what it regards as the Nationalist interlopers who have dared to intrude into what were once â??Labourâ??s natural heartlandsâ??. In my view, Labourâ??s detestation of the Nationalists is found at all levels of the party, whereas the manic hatred of Labour seen in â??the cybernatsâ?? is found at the margins of the party. Labour misjudgement and caricaturing of the Nationalists can be seen everywhere â?? in Iain Grayâ??s latest whinge, Ian Davidson â??s â??neo-fascistâ?? comments, Douglas Alexander, Gordon Brown and about any Labour figure you care to mention. This picture is part of a wider story. We can see a similar pattern in the relationship of Rangers and Celtic, the former the long established dominant club and culture, the latter, seen as the imposters, â??alienâ?? and â??illegitimateâ??. The records of violence, abuse and even tragically deaths connected to â??the Old Firmâ?? isnâ??t balanced between the two, but of predominantly Rangers fans doing violence to Celtic fans; which doesnâ??t excuse the excesses and idiocies of some Celtic fans. The sheer volume of hatred, aggression and anger coming from one quarter in particular, seems to be something the current sectarian bill has failed to grasp. Yet, this is what dominant cultures do when under threat and their once unquestioned writ no longer runs. All of this in our politics and society can be linked to the absence of empathy across swathes of Scotland, damaged, bruised relationships, and an aggressive, masculine language of violence across society, as well as actual violence making Scotland a more violent country than our European neighbours. While we believe we are a friendly, warm, welcoming people, the other side of our society is a shaming record of violence, crime and alcohol abuse which is off the record compared to others. Some of this echoes Carol Craigâ??s analysis in â??The Scotsâ?? Crisis of Confidenceâ??, just reprinted in a revised second edition. She argues that it is commonplace for people to be labeled and judged â??worthlessâ?? and traces this back to Scotlandâ??s religious past and the division into the â??savedâ?? and the â??damnedâ??. I donâ??t think it is an accident that the Rangers v. Celtic divide originated around religion, and that the Labour v. SNP fissure often feels like a throw back to Scotlandâ??s embattled religious sects. There is the need for action in politics. Mike Small, writing in the pro-nationalist â??Bella Caledoniaâ??, said that a debate of â??cybernats v. cyberbritsâ?? was not only quaint given the prevalence of the internet, but also â??a boring gameâ??. Small argues that we desperately need to develop non-party bases for ideas to widen out the debate which has become phenomenally narrow, insular and focused on a political class. And he rightly points to the need for the SNP to change gear in this new environment and have the confidence to engage in a degree of self-criticism, which would ultimately strengthen, not weaken the Nationalist cause. We have to go much further than that. There is a whole host of men behaving badly across Scotland (and some women) and we have to stop colluding with it, allowing it to flourish by silence and evasion, and address it head on. We have to be capable of more than the current disfigurement of much of our society. Arenâ??t our political traditions capable of more than reflecting cliché and stereotype? Would it not aid the Labour Party if it recognised that the Scottish Nationalists have been a force for good in our nation these last forty years, and stopped using a pejorative, negative language of â??separatismâ?? and â??separationâ??? And given that this is the finest hour so far of the Scottish Nationalists, would it not aid a generous, pluralist, dynamic vision of an independent Scotland, if they were to tell the cyber-thought police to shut up? It is fascinating to reflect that even writing the above carries with it a slight feeling of foreboding for what some of our vociferous political tribalists might say, but we have to challenge them. It is understandable that so many people want to cling to a rigid sense of certainty in a turbulent, complex world, but in so doing they only aid a politics of insularity, conformity and conservatism. Such characteristics donâ??t really help Scotland address the kind of challenges we are going to have to face and open up public debate and discussion. Black and White Scotland, the voices of a monochrome world are damaging themselves, their own well-being, the rest of us, our society and our prospect for creating a different, collective future. The campaign for a Scottish self-government which is meaningful, taking a stand against the authoritarian mindsets found across society, and a dynamic, outgoing public culture, are all part of the same canvas and debate.

4 Nov 2011 OPPOSITION attempts to derail the Scottish Governmentâ??s bid to stamp out football-related sectarianism have failed. All four of Holyroodâ??s opposition parties and Independent MSP Margo MacDonald claimed the SNP Government was using its majority to force through a â??rushed, flawed piece of legislationâ? which risked doing more harm than good. However, Community Safety Minister Roseanna Cunningham said the Scottish people wanted a solution to a problem most are â??sick to the back teeth ofâ?. The SNP majority at Holyrood ensured the flagship Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill would continue its parliamentary progress. Opponents said all political parties wanted to root out sectarianism but claimed the SNP Government had failed to make the case for the introduction of new offences which could lead to five-year jail terms and bans from football grounds. They said concerns had been raised about the Bill by the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Justices Association, anti-sectarianism organisations, football supporters groups, religious organisations and childrenâ??s charities and â??their powerful voices deserve to be listened toâ?. A joint statement added: â??We have come together to send the strongest possible message to the SNP Government to stop, take a breath and talk to other parties, to the clubs, and to the many others concerned about these proposals rather than using their majority to force through this flawed legislation. â??Our fear is that the Governmentâ??s response is driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something, not by any evidence this plan would actually work.â? The opposition MSPs said a more effective response would include greater use of existing laws, working with football authorities and promoting positive interventions in communities and the education system. The debate â?? based on the Holyrood Justice Committee report on the Bill â?? was introduced by its convener Christine Grahame. She said that while there had been division on its merits, members were united on the need for action and there was a greater sense of urgency on the part of the football authorities and clubs. She said: â??I donâ??t think anyone in this chamber wants the game to be conducted in what one witness described as a Mary Poppins atmosphere, so sanitised as to be sterile of emotion or passion. â??While the forces of law enforcement have a key role to play in ridding our game of bigotry, so to do the clubs and the footballing authorities.â? Labour spokesman James Kelly claimed events over the summer, including convictions for sectarian singing and inappropriate comments on social networking site Facebook, demonstrated the proper use of existing laws. He said: â??It begs the question why was this legislation needed when the current legislation was being used so effectively?â? Tory spokesman David McLetchie said: â??We should be wary of legislation which, in the broadest sense, impinges on our legal liberty to speak freely and voice opinions, even when they may be robustly or sometimes even coarsely expressed.â? Labourâ??s Graeme Pearson, a former match commander with Strathclyde Police, wanted progress on the Bill held for a year to give football authorities responsibility for â??bringing good conduct to the clubsâ?. He said: â??Ensure sporting authorities deal with sectarian behaviour by withdrawing season tickets, using closed turnstiles for matches or, like Turkey, having only women and children as spectators. Use fines and, worst of all, deduct points.â? Ms Cunningham claimed there had been â??virtually nothing constructiveâ? said by the opposition in the debate. She claimed existing law was not adequate and with further stages of the Bill still to come there was scope for Parliament to shape legislation to create â??a Scotland we all wantâ?. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/opposition-fails-in-bid-to-derail-anti-sectarian-bill-1.1133019

SICK yobs were spotted on camera daubing pro-IRA graffiti across a Rangers-themed boozer in green paint, it was revealed last night. The hooded louts used a ROLLER to plaster the front of the Louden Tavern: Ibrox Stadium, with a reference to the republican terror group. Disgusted owner Robert Marshall â?? who captured the hooligans in the act on CCTV â?? yesterday called in the police in a bid to catch the culprits. He said: "I'm not interested in the politics. I'm just a football fan and I think it's disgusting that, in this day and age, people are still doing these things. "These guys have written CIRA in green lettering which is about 6ft high. I've got them on CCTV using a roller to do it. "It took them a couple of minutes. They've got their hoods up, but I reckon they could be identified. "I will be keeping a log from now on of anything else that happens." The Glasgow pub was previously known as the Stadium Bar. Last night Strathclyde Police said they were dealing with an incident at the boozer. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3876586/Gers-pub-fury-over-IRA-graffiti.html#ixzz1b1aN42nw

Asked what his reaction to anti-Protestant songs being sung would be, Kearney replied: ââ?¬Å?Our position here is to act in the interest of Catholics. [ââ?¬Â¦] ââ?¬Å?Itââ?¬â?¢s not our place to step forward for other religions. If there were anti-Protestant songs, Iââ?¬â?¢d expect our friends at the Church of Scotland to step forward. (1) ââ?¬â?? Scottish Catholic Media Director Peter Kearney. In one small paragraph we see Scotlandââ?¬â?¢s flawed response to sectarianism. Corporatism before Christ. Christians denying the universality of the Christian message. Politics and PR before people. And letââ?¬â?¢s not forget Peter Kearneyââ?¬â?¢s benign tribalism is not alone. His views are shared by many who preach to the wider community on anti-sectarianism. There is a collective failure to grasp that the determination to only act in the interest of your own group, rather than for all Scots, is part of the problem. This doesnââ?¬â?¢t mean itââ?¬â?¢s necessarily done in bad faith. Most people, regardless of background, hold views that are full of myth and half-truth about other groups. Many of those who only see the ââ?¬Å?other sideââ?¬Â as bigots have no idea that they too can be prejudiced. Every Human being holds false views of the world. We canââ?¬â?¢t choose our nationality, culture, religion, family, body, psychology and other important factors at birth. The other beliefs we subsequently choose, can only be done through the distorted prism of those early influences and imperfect knowledge of the facts. We are all biased and there is nothing we can do about it. This is the human condition. The problem is not that we are imperfect and biased. The problem is when we forget we are imperfect and biased. Once we start to believe that we and our ââ?¬Å?tribeââ?¬Â are innately superior we can become the very bigots we are supposedly against. This is what is happening in the sectarian debate within Scotland. We have self-righteous groups projecting all the evils of sectarianism onto other people. Often the right of reply or attempt at dialogue is refused, leading to a feeling of helplessness and anger among the accused. Sometimes this is simply due to vested interest and at other times being unaware that what they dislike, or are offended by, is not the same as sectarianism. The hunger to force us all to be ââ?¬Å?right-minded peopleââ?¬Â (to use the thought-crime language of the day), has led to a despicable situation where legal forms of expression are being deliberately de-legitimised. The whole point of a tolerant society is allowing cultural expression that you may vehemently disagree with as long as it is within the law. You cannot possibly end sectarianism by attempting to de-legitimise non-violent beliefs just because you dislike them. Also the view that the Catholic/Protestant, Irish/British, Celtic/Rangers ââ?¬Å?divideââ?¬Â is a group divide is a horrendous lie. That doesnââ?¬â?¢t mean that there arenââ?¬â?¢t acts of sectarianism, but they are usually caused by drunken hooligans and not actions on behalf of separate communities. Go into any street, workplace and nightclub and see how these sectarian groups fail to materialise. Itââ?¬â?¢s a myth. Friends, lovers and enemies are picked on their own merit and almost never because they belong to the same (or different) Christian sub-sect, ancestry or football team. However, this does not mean that these identities are not deeply held. They are and this is why the attempt to de-legitimise these legal beliefs ââ?¬â?? however offended you others may be by them ââ?¬â?? will only cause them to be aggressively defended rather than disappear. Look at the issue of flags at Scottish football stadiums. There has been a recent rise in questioning why legitimate national flags should be brought into football. Some directly or indirectly question why the Union Flag and Red Hand of Ulster flags (never the Irish Tricolour as they know they would be described as anti-Irish) are allowed to be flown by fans. The logic is that it has nothing to do with football and indirectly a form of bigotry. Do these people not realise that asserting identity is not sectarianism? That the goal should be to encourage legitimate expressions of identity rather than hinder it. If national flags, maudlin folk songs and marches were the only problem there would be no problem. The attempt to whitewash these identities will only lead to anger and will drive it underground. It will only end up creating the very sectarianism and thoughtless tribalism that they say they want stopped. The same is true for free speech. There has been an increase in self-censorship and taboo on language concerning religion. In Scotland there is not enough awareness that criticising religion is not the same as hating those who practice religion. Of-course there are a minority who canââ?¬â?¢t tell the difference, but this should not stop intelligent dialogue among those who can. When Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry condemn Catholicism in the strongest possible terms and Hitchens even talks about the: institutionalisation of rape and torture and maltreatment of children in Catholic institutions (2) can Scotland honestly say to itself that such words (whether right or wrong) would not lead to such a person being ostracised, with the possibility of demands for a sacking and even criminal charges? The irony is that the ordinary person in Scotland is being lectured by Churches whose own history and tradition would shame a despot. The Roman Catholic Church has discriminated, tortured and killed many innocent people because of their race, ethnicity and sex for centuries. (3) Protestant history is no less intolerant. A perfect example being the shameful treatment of Michael Servetus at the hands of John Calvin simply because he had a different theology (4) and the anti-semitism of Martin Luther. (5) Scotlandââ?¬â?¢s own Kirk published the ââ?¬Å?The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationalityââ?¬Â in 1923, that still shames them to this day, (6) and up until 1986 still signed up to sections of the ââ?¬Å?Westminster confession of Faithââ?¬Â that stated the Pope was the ââ?¬Å?AntiChristââ?¬Â. (7) Of-course it has to be made clear that these Churches have dramatically changed, but the declaration of innocence and tendency to scapegoat football fans (of all people), is as dangerous as it is laughable. Many Scots are unaware that football fans did not create sectarianism and that many of the the real culprits are those pointing fingers at others. The superficial focus on songs is so ridiculous that future historians will mock us all. The self-censorship and taboo when discussing sectarianism will also be noticeable. Recently in the Scottish Parliament, John Lamont MSP of the Scottish Conservatives questioned the wisdom of faith schools. The reaction was one of outrage. Not just for disagreeing with those who believe in faith schools, but for even mentioning it at all. Joseph Devine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Motherwell said: ââ?¬Å?The claim that Catholic schools are the cause of sectarianism is offensive and untenable. There has never been any evidence produced by those hostile to Catholicism to support such a malicious misrepresentation.ââ?¬Â (8) Note that Bishop Devine states that such comments are not merely wrong (which is a valid criticism) but that they are ââ?¬Å?hostile to Catholicismââ?¬Â. John Lamont should not only be disagreed with, but by being hostile to Catholicism, he is implicated as anti-Catholic. Astonishingly, Bishop Devine, has previously stated that: Denominational education is an enabler of sectarianism. Roman Catholic schooling is divisive ââ?¬â?? sometimes itââ?¬â?¢s a price worth paying. (9) Whether Mr Lamont is correct or not is irrelevant. He should be allowed to discuss such an important topic without cries for resignation and hints that he is a bigot. It stifles intelligent dialogue by making certain subjects unspeakable. And before I am accused of fixating on the Catholic Church, itââ?¬â?¢s only because the Church of Scotland is an irrelevance. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Kirk no longer represents itââ?¬â?¢s members in the political arena. As a secularist I do not welcome religious groups receiving special treatment, but neither do I think they should disappear. There is a hunger among young working-class Protestants to understand their tradition, but the Kirk fails them by retreating to their ivory tower. Instead of initiatives steering the young into the intelligent and intricate world of Protestant theology, their absence allows those young people to bastardise Protestantism by believing ââ?¬Ë?The Billy Boysââ?¬â?¢ is a part of their faith. The religious tradition that produced the thinking of Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich along with the moral courage of Dietrich Bonhoeffer squashed out of all recognition into the world of the razor gang. However, as much as certain songs should be condemned, there also needs to be a realisation that singing should not be the focus of anti-sectarianism initiatives. We should not continue with the ââ?¬Å?Fuck the Popeââ?¬Â or ââ?¬Å?Up the Raââ?¬Â nonsense, but the childish fixation on songs ââ?¬â?? and in particular the obsession with Rangers fans ââ?¬â?? by the government, media and police needs to be drastically reduced. Resources should be focused on stopping people slashing and stabbing each other rather than offensive song lyrics. At present it seems the reverse is the case. As I mentioned in the piece ââ?¬Å?Zero Tolerance?ââ?¬Â, our enemy isnââ?¬â?¢t some abstract ââ?¬Å?other sideââ?¬Â, but thugs who use the excuse of history at best, or at worst ignorant myth, to get drunk and knife innocent people for the glory of other halfwits. Tribalism pretending to end tribalism will not work. Looking for cultural scapegoats will not work. We need to take back the sectarian debate from those with a vested interest in demonising whole groups of people for their own ends. This does not mean leaving our core identities behind, but simply realising that disagreement and difference is fine, as long as we agree to live without violence or the threat of violence. Notes 1) http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/03/26/church-set-to-prepare-hate-song-dossier-as-fans-claim-cops-allowed-sectarianism-at-hampden-86908-23017130/ 2) See debate on youtube between Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry against Ann Widdecombe John Onaiyekan in a debate on ââ?¬Å?Is the Catholic Church a force of good in the world?ââ?¬Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmFYpuYh6w0 3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/674246.stm http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/12654_pope_john_paul_ii_asks_for_forgiveness_march_12_2000_.cfm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Jubilee#Prayer_for_Forgiveness_for_Sins_of_the_Church 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin#Michael_Servetus_.281553.29 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism 6) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2014961.stm 7) http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/our_faith/westminster_confession_of_faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/650/westminster_confession.pdf (original in PDF) 8) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13891033 http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/259837-msp-criticised-over-schools-sectarianism-comment/ 9) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2274383.stm http://johndcgow.com/2011/08/02/tribalism-pretending-to-end-tribalism/

In the Franz Kafka novel The Trial, a man is prosecuted by an obscure authority that fails to state his crime. I havenââ?¬â?¢t read it since my Existentialist teenage years, but memory is of a bizarre, claustrophobic fiction showing the evils of faceless bureaucracy. Of-course I would be hysterical if I said this was in any way modern Scotland. We are still part of a wonderfully free society that should make us proud. But we are still not past condemning others with labels ââ?¬â?? with no thought given to what that label actually means. We now habitually call others ââ?¬Å?Sectarianââ?¬Â without telling them what they have done wrong and then refusing any defence. Labelling someone ââ?¬Å?sectarianââ?¬Â is the new fashion, yet most assume their personal definition of sectarianism is the actual definition. The truth is that there is no agreed definition, and that is a major part of the problem. And donââ?¬â?¢t assume that those in authority are even aware of this. When people like Margo MacDonald MSP say the difference between Hearts/Hibs fans and Rangers/Celtic fans is that you will never see a family who supports both Old Firm teams, is to become aware that those making the decisions are sometimes scarily ignorant. This ignorance and reliance on ââ?¬Å?Groupthinkââ?¬Â can lead to a state where myth and lies becomes accepted as truth. The majority take the path of least resistance and rely on shallow statements and surface details, and never thinking of scratching below the surface. Over the past six months this has led to Politicians, Police and anti-Sectarian organisations so determined to stamp out sectarianism that they will flatly refuse to tell us what it is, or participate in any project to ease discrimination in society. Itââ?¬â?¢s all slogans. In fact there is so little action to ease sectarian discrimination in Politics, Law, the Media, Housing and Employment that you could say no-one believes it exists in these fields. Instead, the sole focus is on singing songs. Yes, the great fight of sectarianism that has so many people outraged is of a few football fans. When First Minister Alex Salmond wants to publicise an anti-sectarian initiative he goes to a football stadium. I am sure many readers will know of FARE (Football against Racism in Europe) who in their determination to stop Sectarian chanting from Rangers fans refuse to tell Rangers fans what is sectarian. (A cynic might think they are uninterested in preventing sectarianism so Rangers can be punished again.) What would happen if Scotland fans were accused of racism by FARE and UEFA punished the SFA without telling anyone what was said? There would be uproar among the SFA, Media and Parliament. The reason why this hasnââ?¬â?¢t happened in Rangersââ?¬â?¢ case is that most in the aforementioned chattering classes are enjoying it. Itââ?¬â?¢s human nature that we accept accusations against those we dislike without much care. The Rangers FC must take some of the blame for not stamping out certain songs among some Rangers fans quicker, and for being weak in not defending the vast majority of the overwhelmingly decent supporters from attacks by obsessed pro-IRA supporting ââ?¬Å?journalistsââ?¬Â, who spend their existence on blogs and twitter making all the worlds ills the fault of a Glasgow football team. Deranged bloggers and murky UEFA bodies aside, we should expect different standards from our political class and Police. How is it possible that Central Police publicly state in a recent match between a Rangers XI and Stirling Albion, that Rangers fans sang sectarian songs, yet cannot tell us what the songs are or why there were no arrests? Why the secrecy and lack of action? Yet, for all the recent fuss, Central Police, like Strathclyde Police, are aware of and defend the right of openly pro-IRA bands to sell concert tickets to sing songs about Surface to Air Missiles downing British Helicopters in Northern Ireland; IRA snipers executing young British soldiers as they plead for their life and blatantly racist lyrics like, ââ?¬Å?The Brits will never leave us until theyââ?¬â?¢re blown away.ââ?¬Â The truth is that Scottish Police, like other British police forces, are highly political. There is no political capital in senior officers stopping songs about murdering British people for no reason other than they are British. Why go after pro-IRA bands that are supported at concerts by high-profile people like Billy McNeill, Bertie Auld and John Hartson and others who have been authorised in the past to make pro-IRA song videos at Celtic Park? They know the fallout would be immense. However, there is plenty of career-advancing opportunity in being strong in condemning sectarianism among a few hundred young Rangers fans. Sectarianism that was so bad there were no arrests and the Police canââ?¬â?¢t even tell the public what happened. Take a moment to let that sink in. The Police are so confident that an offence has taken place that they publicise it, but refuse to arrest anyone and wish to keep the offence a secret. The new ââ?¬Å?Secret Sectarianismââ?¬Â at work. http://johndcgow.com/2011/07/14/secret-sectarianism/