Threats and silence: the intimidation by Rangers fans - Alex Thomson

[pete 2,499]

Hold your horses - you think 31k people have bought Phil 3 Names book? No chance.

 

I certainly hope not and it was just a bit of a dig at the Celtic support. I do think it will possibly be on the wanna have list for the Polyethylene Irish.

[Guest Bluenose80]

Shockingly poor journalisim. Its totally one sided on every point raised and paints a totally false picture of the actual events. He has been totally brainwashed by three names and sees everything from only a Celtic point of view.

[ian1964 10,413]

Leggat:

 

Monday, 15 October 2012

ALEX THOMSON NOW UNDER ATTACK

 

CHANNEL FOUR’s Alex Thomson is now under pressure and on the run, after becoming a top target for Britain’s most read newspaper.

 

 

The Daily Mail’s old fashioned paper copy is read by six million people every day the length and breadth of Britain. Which make it pretty influential.

 

 

But when you add to that another ten million people who daily log on to read the Mail’s hugely successful on-line edition, you get the full measure of just how powerful the Paul Dacre edited publication is.

 

 

It is also the voice of Middle Britain, the voice of the silent majority who are slow to anger, but who add up to a formidable force when they finally snap.

 

 

And as far as Alex Thomson is concerned, the Daily Mail has finally snapped. Which is not good news for Alex Thomson and not good news for Channel Four.

 

 

For the Daily Mail is relentless. If you don’t believe me then just remember how they pursued the Stephen Lawrence murder case until justice was done.

 

 

First out of the blocks in taking Thomson to task was the Daily Mail’s biggest and most lethal gun, the truly magnificent Richard Littlejohn, not a man whose barbs and peerless prose you would be on the wrong end of.

 

 

That Littlejohn attack came after Alex Thomson broke just about every journalistic ethical code in the book with what verged on a physical assault on Kelvin McKenzie.

 

 

Now I understand Littlejohn’s attention has been drawn to the second time Alex Thomson has mocked the 66 victims of the Ibrox Disaster, by referring to Rangers fans as Daleks, a term which has long been used by the wild zealots on the extreme wing of the Celtic support to ridicule Rangers fans as not being able to negotiate stairs.

 

 

It is now only a matter of time before the Daily Mail also turns its attention to Alex Thomson’s first mocking of the Ibrox Disaster when he endorsed a video who showed the statue of John Greig, which stands in tribute to those who perished in the Ibrox Disaster, running away.

 

 

That disgraceful slur from Alex Thomson led to his bosses at Channel Four rushing out an unreserved apology.

 

 

I wonder what those same Channel Four bosses will make of his Dalek slur, a far worse and low insult, a slur of the sort usually associated with wild eyed IRA supporting extremists and not national television news reporters?

 

 

There is certainly no lack of material for the Daily Mail – never shy of getting stuck into the up themselves pseudo intellectual luvvies of Channel Four – to get its into teeth into when it comes to Alex Thomson.

 

 

As well as his two disgraceful insults to the memory of the 66 souls who perished in the Ibrox Disaster, he has branded Strathclyde Police corrupt and made two claims, for which there is no evidence, that he has been threatened by me, plus claiming the army in Syria tried to set him up to be killed, a claim which the Daily Telegraph investigated and could find no proof of, despite Alex Thomson insisting there were five other occupants in the car when the attempt at an ambush was meant to have taken place.

 

 

And that’s just for starters.

 

 

For when the Daily Mail gets busy who knows what they will find about the content of the many other stories Alex Thomson has filed for Channel Four from a number of countries?

 

 

Will it, for instance, come to light that on a number of occasions Alex Thomson has filed reports which contained claims and allegations which nobody else could find a basis in fact for?

 

 

However, even taking all of that into account, the Daily Mail and its 16 million readers every day, may prove to be the least of Alex Thomson’s worries.

 

 

For Private Eye is also on Alex Thomson’s case.

 

 

Therefore, personally, as well as professionally, he had better be squeaky clean.

 

 

Pip! Pip!

[Thinker 858]

Yesterday, I had a bizarre evening. Like many other fans I decided to post a response to Alex Thomson's blog: Threats and silence: the intimidation by Rangers fans. I don't think I included anything that wasn't covered by many of the other responses but for some reason my post was removed and I received an email reply. I then engaged in a short back-on-forth of messages. I'm not 100% convinced that the author was actually Alex Thomson (I guess someone could have read my post before it was deleted and replied from a bogus account) but the email address checks out (ALEX.THOMSON@ITN.CO.UK) and nothing was written that is particularly out-of-keeping with his point of view. Does anyone know of any other instances of him ever replying to a poster before?

 

I'm not skilled in the arts of debate, plus I was distracted by being at work when I replied to his emails, so I'm afraid I didn't do a particularly good job of pinning him down. In hindsight there are points which I obviously should have made. I also feel bad that I compared Leggo to Phil 3names at one point which is probably a bit harsh.

 

There's nothing especially controversial or incriminating in his messages. The main point would be that he claims, without any real evidence, that there is a violent, criminal underclass in existance amongst our support - one that is not present at any other club. He also maintains that the incident where he claimed to have been threatened by a Scottish Journalist was a cunning ruse on his part to expose denial of intimidation in Glasgow journalism and to provoke Leggo. Personally, I don't buy that - I think he's just making excuses for an embarassing gaff on his part.

 

Anyway, here's my response to his blog, and the emails. There's a lot of waffle so I'm sorry if it doesn't make particularly exciting reading.

 

-------------------------------------

 

A few points Alex:

 

1) Lord Nimmo-Smith's statement regarding the independence of his enquiry was not in response to intimidation by anyone. It was a response to Charles Green's statement that the SFA and SPL had attempted to strip the award of league titles and cups from Rangers (as part of the deal to see them re-admitted into the Scottish league set-up) before any guilt has been established. The SFL objected to this cart-before-horse form of justice and that is why League Cup wins were not amongst the list of trophies to be stripped. Mr Green understandably expressed doubt about the subsequently launched enquiry to investigate any wrong-doing (how can the SFA/SPL enquiry be impartial if they have already expressed the desire to impose a punishment prior to the enquiry commencing?) I would have thought that this matter would be of far more interest to an investigative journalist.

 

2) The serialisation of Phil MacGiollaBhain's book was not dropped by The Sun due to intimidation by anyone. It was dropped because it was brought to the publisher’s attention that MacGiollaBhain is a sectarian bigot with a deep-rooted hatred of Rangers. It is disappointing that you chose to write a forward for this unsavoury character's book - some of his work (The Incubator, for example) is indefensible.

 

3) Ally McCoist's demand to know the names of the SFA Tribunal members in April was a straightforward request for transparency in order to cast light on potential conflicts-of-interest following a bizarre decision - one which was subsequently over-turned in a court of law as the tribunal (which included Lord Nimmo-Smith) had failed to correctly apply the SFA rule-book. The SFA then proceeded to force Rangers to accept the "illegal" punishment as a condition of re-entry into the Scottish League set-up.

 

4) While intimidation via social networking sites is unacceptable, it is also important to check how serious the offences are by examining police records of the incidents. As far as I am aware none of the incidents mentioned in your article were taken further by the police (including those purported to have taken place in bookshops as well as those via twitter). I believe your quote that 25 NUJ journalists were threatened comes from Phil MacGiollaBhain - a man who has shown previously that he is prepared to lie and exaggerate in order to discredit Rangers. In fact, you yourself have been shown to be guilty of exaggerating the severity of threats when you declared, in a radio interview, that you had been threatened by a Scottish Journalist. It later transpired that the message had been sent from an obvious spoof account and that the "threat" was that you "needed a slap". Unsurprisingly the police did not feel this was worthy of further investigation.

[Thinker 858]

[No Subject]

 

FROM: Thomson, Alex

TO: **********

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 16:35

 

 

All fine then because the Sun says so.

 

All fine because the police say so.

 

Dear oh dear we don't like to question things do we?

 

And yes, I knew full well that was a spoof account because I'd been told. By using it I wanted to achieved two things:

 

1. I suspected the two Glasgow journalists would immediately play down the issue of intimidation. They did thus exposing the problem.

 

They did.

 

2. I strongly suspected it would embolden David Leggat into behaving even more stupidly by issuing more threats convinced I'd been duped.

 

He did.

 

 

The journos were exposed as complacent. Leggat ended up with a motion to expel him from the NUJ and fine him £1000 being passed.

 

Keep on sweeping mate, everything's just fine.

 

 

ALEX THOMSON

PRESENTER/ CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, CHANNEL 4 NEWS

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: **********

TO: Thomson, Alex

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 18:22

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply Alex,

 

But I'm sorry: This isn't about avoiding questions or sweeping things away.

 

With regards to the Leggoisblotto threat: if you hold up something which is clearly false as an example of a problem, it detracts from your argument. How can you expect anyone to say, "Yes, I see your point."? The only sensible response is to say, "If that's the best example you have then you really don't have much of an argument." How could the Glasgow Journalists have reacted any differently?

 

In any case, David Leggat is regarded as a bit of a nut by most Rangers fans. He's hardly an example of a typical supporter or a tyipcal journalist - his actions can't reasonably be taken as an example of a wider problem.

 

With regards to threats via twitter in general: if you were to write a negative comment about any football team you would most likely get an aggressive response from some half-wit or other. It's not right, but do you have evidence to suggest that Rangers fans are significantly worse? Try tweeting something derogatory about Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd or Celtic. They all have large enough supports to ensure that some of their number will be headcases with twitter accounts. I'm sure they all have a David Leggat.

 

There are also a couple of points in my main post that you haven't addressed in your reply:

 

Firstly, Phil MacGiollaBhain's book wasn't serialised because he is quite obviously a biggotted man. I really don't see how you can defend the sort of material he has published in the past - many would consider him Celtic's David Leggat. Please, I urge you, do some investigation on this fellow.

 

Secondly, Lord Nimmo-Smith's enquiry was questioned by Charles Green (not the supporters) and for very obvious reasons. The SFA and the SPL attempted to impose a punishment on Rangers for the alleged crimes to be investigated by the enquiry before the enquiry even began. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Can you at least see how this might be a cause of some concern?

 

You are correct when you say that things aren't necessarily fine just because the police say they're not. But conversely things aren't necessarily wrong just because an unsubstantiated anecdote says they are. I'm all in favour of questions being asked - but the answers have to be solid demonstrable facts in order to be taken seriously, not insinuations and no-smoke-without-fire innuendo.

 

Regards,

 

Alistair.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: Thomson, Alex

TO: **********

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 18:39

 

No wider problem? Consider then Tom English, senior sportswrite Scotland on Sunday dismissing all this as "cyber-stick" "hysterical" and "attention-seeking".

 

Tom has at least seen fit to clarify his remarks though not apologise.

 

Like him you epitomise a toxic culture in genuine denial.

 

When that's from a thick football fan I've no problem as they cannot think their way out of anger - you can.

 

You should.

 

Cheers - A

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: **********

TO: Thomson, Alex

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 20:07

 

Alex, I'm denying nothing - it's impossible for me to deny anything until evidence is placed in front of me.

 

You say there's a wider problem - Tom English says there isn't. Which opinion should I believe, which one should I deny? As a Rangers fan it certainly doesn't seem like we've been bullying all and sundry into accepting our point of view - the last year has been absolutely terrible for us. The institution that we love, our team, has been alternately vicitmised and villified. We've been cast down to the lowest level of senior football - even Juventus, who were found guilty of match fixing did not suffer that. If Rangers fans have been attempting to intimidate people into accepting their opinions, then we certainly haven't been very succesful at it have we? I'm sure there would be outrage and consternation amongst the supporters of any other club who had to go through a similar ordeal, where the punishment appears ot be disproportional to the crime. What evidence is there that Rangers fans are extraordinarily out-of-line?

 

Once again I'm sorry to note that you haven't responded to my questions about Phil MacGiollaBhain's own toxic point-of-view, or the genuinely concerning actions of the SFA and SPL in attempting to impose punishment on Rangers before any investigation.

 

Do you deny either of these facts?

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: Thomson, Alex

TO: **********

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 20:48

 

English isn't getting journos speaking to him. E hasn't talked to the cops. English doesn't know or care what happened at the Sun. English hasn't seen the crime reports. Or spent time with Hutton. Or seen the nuj list.

 

Because they don't care.

 

I jkust placed lots of evidence which you simply ignore. You thinl Regan or Hutton make this up? Or Bob Smith?

 

You cankt mention shops or most journos because they're shit scared.

 

Or the academics.

 

As for Phil I've told everyone I don't give a damn about his personal politics. Choice of aftershave or breakfast cereal.

 

I care about a factual book about R not one, single R fan has complained about.

 

Any more if this whining on about irrelevance and I won't respond.

 

You jave to face reality and truth that your club has a violent menacing underclass and you are in deep denial.

 

And yes - they've been unnsuccessful at intimidation in some respects - though they did for The Sun. Shameful.

 

ALEX THOMSON

PRESENTER/ CHIEF CORRESPONDENT,CHANNEL 4 NEWS

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: **********

TO: Thomson, Alex

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 21:14

 

Alex,

 

Give me some evidence I can accept - everything you have provided is completely anecdotal. Personally, I have no direct experience of Rangers fans threatening anyone so why would I take your word for it? Show us the crime reports. Show us the NUJ list.

 

Scottish, British and European society has a violent and menacing underclass - I don't see how you can substantiate any claim that this is unique to any one football club. You'll find Tottenham, Swansea Aberdeen fans in jail.

 

With regards to Phil: You ought to care about his personal habits. He has a track record of lying and making things up in order to harm Rangers (please, do some research on this) - an institution which he hates with a passion not found in most right-minded individuals. He's renowned for his flights of fancy, so I admire your confidence that his book is entirely factual - do you also believe that it's even-handed? Once again: The Sun withdrew the serialization of his book because he is a Sectarian bigot. Rangers fans influenced this decision simply by saying they would refuse to purchase the paper if they insisted on going ahead with the serialization. That's perfectly acceptable behaviour in our society. There is nothing sinister about demonstration or boycott.

 

I'm sorry that you find my concern about the treatment of my club to be "whining". All I'm saying is that you can't realistically claim that Rangers have been guilty of dishing out threats and intimidation without acknowledging that we've also been on the receiving end. There are reports that Ally McCoist's son has received threatening messages as has Charles Green. Do these reports concern you as deeply?

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: Thomson, Alex

TO: **********

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 21:50

 

I'm busy. You either listen or that's all thw help I can give:

Regan - not anecdotal

Hutton - not anecdotal

Smith - not anecdotal

 

The rest - shops, nuj etc I cannot go into

 

People

 

Are

 

Scared

 

Do you need pictures?

 

-------------------------------------

 

Re:

 

FROM: **********

TO: Thomson, Alex

 

Monday, 15 October 2012, 22:24

 

Alex,

 

The fact remains that anyone who antagonises (justifiably or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise) the fans of a major football team will undoubtedly receive some unpleasant feedback via phone, email or social media. Rangers are no different. The only thing that distinguishes this case is the extreme severity of the turmoil that the club, and the rest of Scottish Football finds itself in as a result. If, for example, I had to make a decision on whether or not to strip last year's Premier League title from Manchester City and award it Manchester United, I would be scared. Wouldn't you?

 

In Scotland, due to the extremely poor handling of Rangers' financial crisis by the footballing authorities, paranoia is rife. It does not need to be fueled. It's not right that people should be threatened at all, but that's the way it is - fans are passionate about their team, and some don't understand the limits. As an experiment, try tweeting that you have evidence that leads you to believe Rangers are being victimised by the SFA and should be allowed to get on with their football unmolested. See what kind of responses you get.

[biggordy 0]

In my opinion, Thomson's latest piece was trying to threaten our proposed share issue by tainting the Club as being nasty, evil etc.

Why else would his diatribe appear in the "Financial News" section ??

 

http://www.financial-news.co.uk/8022/2012/10/glasgow-rangers-fans-threaten-over-media-coverage/

 

I've also read somewhere in twitter that bheast fans are planning to de-stablize the issue by costing the Club £3 a time by requesting multiple prospecti.

[calscot 0]

This guy is supposed to be a journalist?

 

He comes across as one of those uneducated Celtic fans whose argument relies on repeating innuendo and rhetoric while ignoring any kind of engagement with a well reasoned argument.

 

Looking at that exchange without knowing who you both were and asking people to point out who is the journalist and who is the fan and I would be shocked if most people didn't choose Thinker as the educated journalist and put Thomson down as an ignorant, narrow minded fan.

[BlueMazza 0]

Leggo holds Richard Littlejohn up as a good guy? He's more cracked than I thought. Littlejohn is nothing more than pious, disgusting, snivelling twat. His mission in life is to be offensive to as many as possible.

[andy steel 0]

You got that right. If we are relying on the likes of Littlejohn to ride to our rescue, we're in a worse spot than I thought!

 

That can't be the actual Thomson talking. I would put him on ignore if he posted on here like that...garbage and a refusal to answer questions on a Whyte-like scale. I'm sure Thinker must have been talking to a spoof, he must have.

[Zappa 0]

Thomson comes accross as a really nasty, dislikable sort that isn't enjoying life as much as he would like to. Oh well.