Graham Spiers - 'Cowardly Rangers turn a blind eye to bigotry'

[Super_Ally 0]

Pressing someone to accept your argument because more people agree with you doesn't do it for me. It's neither fortunate nor unfortunate for me, it's irrelevant. Suggesting I'm not humble is equally pointless; I'm used to it after four years on RM, but it doesn't get us anywhere. If you only want posters who meekly proffer some accepted line, decided who knows where, your debates ain't going to be very strong, are they?

 

Spiers: to ban or not to ban? That's where I check out, because he isn't going to be banned. It's not a case of 'Andy doesn't want to ban him' it's a case of 'he's not going to be banned'; therefore, what's the point in rattling on about it? I wasn't aware accepting reality was arrogant, but then you learn something new every day.

 

I forget which poster said I was saying two things at once, my apologies. You can't claim dismissing Spiers with a 'yes,yes' type release is giving him the attention he craves. The Marcotti example is a good one. He has some previous in Scottish football, but he's 'national' now and only very rarely dips a toe in our chilly Caledonian waters. Why, then, is he commenting on Spiers and his one man crusade? Could it be to introduce the wider, UK audience to the hotbed of bigotry that is Ibrox? Could it be because, as an Italian, he is outraged by the disrepec' shown to the 'oly Pappa? Or is it because he has seen the spike in interest in an otherwise marginal writer from the regions and fancies a bit of that himself?

 

Offhand comtempt is my way of dealing with him. If you don't want to do that, I'm not forcing you to.

 

Another arrogant and condescending post. How do they suffer you on RM?

 

I wasn't suggesting you were arrogant for accepting reality. You're arrogant for insisting you are smarter than everyone else or that your opinion is somehow worth more than a vast number of other intelligent people.

 

Tired of your condescension though and didn't bother reading the rest of your post. How's that for arrogance.

 

Your posting style is reminiscent of the bullshit speirs comes out with in fact. No wonder you're such a fan.

[Zappa 0]

Spiers: to ban or not to ban? That's where I check out, because he isn't going to be banned. It's not a case of 'Andy doesn't want to ban him' it's a case of 'he's not going to be banned'; therefore, what's the point in rattling on about it?

You might well have a valid point to be fair. We can call for him to be banned from Ibrox on internet forums, in forum sponsored articles, blogs etc as much as we like, but the ultimate question is 'Will the club actually ban him?', not 'Should the club actually ban him?'. The reality of it is that none of us know for sure if the club will ban him or not, but it's perfectly fine to speculate as to the answer to the question & I can't help but agree with you that's it's very unlikely to happen. I can't say 'won't happen', since none of us can predict the future, but the chances/odds of Spiers being banned from Ibrox are not good at all, whether 100% of the fans want him there or not. It's a decision that only the club can make & I seriously doubt that it's a coarse of action they'll take. Don't get me wrong though, because if they did tell him he's not welcome I'd view it as pretty damn funny & a brave step to take, considering that it could be more provocative than preventative.

[Cotter 0]

I humbly request that WE ban him. No more Spiers articles on gersnet please. Poll Mods?

[Zappa 0]

I humbly request that WE ban him. No more Spiers articles on gersnet please. Poll Mods?

Do you not think it's ok to talk about what these people like Spiers, Martin & co are writing about Rangers as long as we don't have links to the article on their employers website which gives their website hits & AD revenue?? That's why I deliberately didn't provide a link to the article in the OP.

 

I'm cool either way tbh. If we don't talk about these things, we won't end up arguing about them either which is never that nice to see if things go a bit too far, but the majority seem to think we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand.

[craig 5,199]

So Andy, you are pretty much saying that as you can't influence any decision on this that we should just ignore it as it isnt our decision to make ?

 

You take that stance in everything in your life ? Well done.

 

Reality is that people are entitled to their opinion and, sometimes, opinion sways the powers that be. It has happened before and it will happen again.

 

There is no reason to not at least TRY to see if bringing this tool (Speirs) to task.

 

The burying of your head in the sand achieves the square root of fuck all. Trying to garner influence in having him brought to task is at least an effort, regardless of outcome.

[Norris Cole 0]

The burying of your head in the sand achieves the square root of fuck all.

 

Not strictly true Craig. It's achieved Spiers' objective of us being social pariahs.

[andy steel 0]

They don't suffer me on RM. I don't post there anymore, and when I do I notice the posts get pulled. Not something I can change so I'm not going to start whining about it.

 

Superally is off on one again. If you know me, would you mind introducing yourself? If you don't, would you mind refraining from ascribing to me certain characteristics? Levelling charges of this or that at anonymous internet posters may let one let off some steam, but it achieves nothing.

 

To your one point in the post: I am a fan of Spiers. I certainly used to like him, he was a breath of fresh air. But that was about 10 years ago, probably more, and indeed I have stopped taking the Sunday Times since (unannounced) they started carrying the 'best' of his column from the week in their Scottish edition. With fans like me, his future is assured! Or you could be mistaking disagreement with you for agreement with Spiers.

 

Shroomz is quite right, the club MAY ban Spiers, so I was wrong to say it isn't going to happen quite so definitively. But does anyone think there's even a 10% chance of it? Maybe with a new owner.

 

So Andy, you are pretty much saying that as you can't influence any decision on this that we should just ignore it as it isnt our decision to make ?

 

No, I'm saying the RST/RSA and such groups, should issue dismissive statements rather than ones which allow Spiers to surf a wave of controversy. He gets off on it, so why help him? I'm trying to think of a stance which conveys our contempt for Spiers view on sectarianism, which displays our maturity and weariness. I think that would bring fans and club into a joint position, which wouldn't require a ban (he'd just love to be a martyred historical figure, which is unsurprising in a Baptist) but which would push Spiers into the margins as far as possible.

 

If the subject of sectarianism is raised in a context that isn't infected with pious pseudo-outrage, it can be discussed and hopefully dealt with - that's not possible with this writer. We certainly aren't dodging the issue, we want to dodge Spiers. That's my take on it.

 

Reality is that people are entitled to their opinion and, sometimes, opinion sways the powers that be. It has happened before and it will happen again.

 

There is no reason to not at least TRY to see if bringing this tool (Speirs) to task.

 

I don't argue with that; I say, though, that there's no sign of trying having any impact on the board at Rangers. McNee wasn't banned, and if he was afforded press priviledges I can't see anyone else being barred.

 

The burying of your head in the sand achieves the square root of fuck all

 

Again, taking a different approach is equated with doing nothing. Even if, as seems likely, both courses of action achieve the same end. I don't buy any paper Spiers writes in; I don't listen to any radio show he takes part in; I don't watch any TV show he is on; I avoid as far as possilbe any link to his work; I explain at every opportunity to people where he is mistaken, and why I believe his motive is pernicious. Other than that, yes, I bury my head in the sand.

[Union City Blue 0]

Picking this up a little late, but I can see where Andy's coming from here. It's a question of tactics.

 

Some say ignore Spiers - he's a nothing in a world which is getting bored of the sectarianism debate; we can cope and nobody's listening anyway.

 

Others say ban him - don't allow him to breeze into Ibrox Stadium and proceed to stiffen us in print, on-line and over the airwaves the next day, regardless what that might cause.

 

Some say make him look foolish - say something which (in Andy's terms) equates to a "yeah yeah yeah, we've noticed Graham's always doing this isn't he and it's becoming tiresome" line. Let it be known that our patience is wearing thin.

 

All things considered, I'd say there is a pretty good argument for Rangers to start with the latter option, as tempting as it is to just boot him in the baws and tell him to fuck off. It would act as a reasonable warning which, if ignored, leaves the door open for more substantial action.

[maineflyer 0]

Not strictly true Craig. It's achieved Spiers' objective of us being social pariahs.

 

What is it about Rangers supporters who, even after years of this shite from Spiers, still advocate doing nothing as a first option. Then, if really riled, might just suggest dropping hints. It's little wonder we are where we are today, with this fixation on style over substance. Nancy boys.

[pete 2,499]

Stopping Speirs getting into Ibrox won't make him stop printing his tripe. I agree that turning him into a martyr could even be the worse option. I would say E-mails of complaint to his editor and not buying his paper would be better options.