Chris Graham Twitter problem

[simplythebest 0]

I'd say for certain that some of our own would have been part of this witchhunt against CG.

 

You have nothing to back it up though do you?

[BlueMazza 0]

They also had nothing to do with Islam and were not the reason behind the Je Suis Charlie campaign. If they did what Chris Graham did, they would not have got anything like the same sympathy. The situations are incomparable.

 

I don't remember all those on here defending him doing the same for Charles Green. If Sandy Easdale did this a few weeks ago would everyone be so intent on sweeping it under the carpet? No, there would be vehement condemnation.

 

Not the same thing at all. Chris retweeted a parody picture. Charles Green used a racial slur. Religion is a choice.

[BlueMazza 0]

Let's see if words of one syllable will help. This has taken me some time, so I hope you appreciate the effort.

 

When wear-tie man say or do bad thing, man make club look bad. Big not-pay-tax man make club look bad, big daft tweet man make club look bad. Me not like when club look bad, me like it when club look good.

 

You know you are losing the argument when you resort to that kind of pettiness. Someone disagreeing with you does make them stupid or incapable of understanding, they just disagree.

[MoodyBlue 0]

You have nothing to back it up though do you?

 

Just go on RM and see what many were threatening to do if he got a place on the Board.

The hatred for CG from some of the lunatic fringe in our support is pretty bitter.

 

Whilst I can't prove that any of oiur own were involved in this, at the same time, you can't prove that they weren't.

[andy steel 0]

I agree with you, Andy.

 

It's alleged that CG had eyes on getting to the Rangers board as fan rep for a while now, so for him to think that tweeting such a crass and unsavoury message is very poor judgement.

 

I'm in a position of power at a pretty small organisation in my work and wouldn't tweet, Facebook anything which could be construed as offensive to anyone, for no other reason other than I don't want to upset any of our customers or any of their acquaintances so for a guy, often wheeled out as the face of the Rangers fans to be posting such an offensive image on social media is stupidity of the highest order.

 

For the guys condoning this as it was ok for Hebdo magazine in Paris to do likewise, one is a satire magazine who insult everyone in the name of "free speech" (which doesn't actually exist anyway) and the other is supposed to be a Director of Scotland's predominant football Club. I'm assuming these same fans would be equally as defensive of CG should he deride the Orange Order or Calvinism/Presbyterian? I'm not so sure.

 

If he stays, and I know it's very early days, then it wouldn't bode well for the current Board and the shambles which is Rangers would continue I fear.

 

On the day when we should be talking about our new manager, everyone is talking about Chris Graham and that is damning on the latter.

 

I'd like to think there's a way out and that Chris could remain in situ for we should not forget the job he's done in saving - quite literally saving from extinction imo - the club. But this is a major bummer and as you say, in any business it would hard to ride this one out. I suppose you could argue that football is not a business like any other and that offensiveness is part of the gig - in fact I think I have argued that before - but at such a time we could really do without this.

[26th of foot 5,833]

Here's the gig.

 

Chris issues a statement backed by the club.

 

'Apologies, I've had my £30 of software moment. In future, I shall ensure James Cook edits all my outpourings'.

[Frankie 8,150]

I'm certain you're right, and there's absolutely no doubt that Chris wouldn't do the same again, no-one sane would. But that's kind of shutting the stable door. And it was what, 11 weeks ago? Not exactly a lifetime.

 

My main concern over this, which has got a bit lost amid the offended/free speech mire, is actually the security implications for Rangers fans. I think the reporting is a scandal, inasmuch as if the media wanted revenge (which seems obvious) they could have gone to Police Scotland to alert them they were running with it, who might have 'had a quiet word'. Blasting it out around the world's internet is so irresponsible it's just not real. But there it is, and we have to deal with it. It's just a nightmare.

 

I'm glad you agree the reporting of the issue is worth discussing as I share your concerns.

 

This isn't about Chris Graham and one tweet. This is about all of us and getting at Rangers.

 

All the more reason to stick together.

[Calgacus 8]

To use a metaphor, Chris Graham has been like a soldier in a war, the war to save Rangers, but the war has been won. Usually once the Victory Parade has been held the soldiers are given their medals and go home. and the peacemakers take the stage. It's perhaps time for someone else to take things on.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Not the same thing at all. Chris retweeted a parody picture. Charles Green used a racial slur. Religion is a choice.

Both are very offensive to certain groups of people. What is the relevance of religion being a choice?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Is Chris Graham getting some 'payback' for his stance towards many in the media? Undoubtedly in my opinion. When you've been as strident as he's been about reporting standards and quality you set yourself up as a target. There's revenge at play here and those who offered him the position should have seen that coming.

 

However that doesn't make this story on him wrong. It was an insane thing to 'tweet' and demonstrates a staggering lack of judgement, that alone should throw a question over his new role. Every right thinking person was horrified and disgusted by the Charlie Hebdo attacks but most of us didn't choose to draw something crude and deliberately provocative and send it to a Muslim cleric, whatever our view of his 'beliefs'.

 

There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of who would have found that drawing deeply offensive, that after all was its aim. It's all very well championing freedom of speech but that doesn't take away personal responsibility. Had someone drawn a crude cartoon deliberately mocking the Ibrox disaster how would we feel if two months later that person was made a director of a senior football club? I've a feeling we wouldn't be defending his freedom of expression.

 

I've no idea what Chris Graham's views are on Islam and I'd have little difficulty accepting this was a knee-jerk reaction done in the heat of the moment and with perspective he might now regret it. But he needs to say that and see what the fall out is. Either way if (and I think it highly likely) an intelligent and reasonable muslim commentator criticises him for this he'll come under huge pressure to step down.

 

John, the two points I have highlighted are surprisingly weak, coming from you.

 

First of all, when he made that tweet he was not, nor would he conceivably be, a director of Rangers. His position at Rangers is to represent fans' viewpoints; he is not tasked with expanding the Rangers brand in the Middle East and Asia.

 

His response to the rantings of an islamofascist was a legitimate response that can be justified, even if it may not be something that you or I agree with or would have done, It certainly does not call into question his judgement on fan issues or indeed anything else.

 

In my opinion, his retweet was no more Islamophobic than Hugh Dallas' email was anti-Catholic.

 

Allowing him to be branded and Islamophobe, and by implication racist when there is no suggestion that he is either, would not only be shameful it would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. Chris Graham, the public face of the intelligent, erudite, measured Rangers fan is 'exposed' as a bigot and a racist - so what does that make the rest of us?

 

The second point about someone drawing a cartoon about the Disaster is weaker than a Mohsni clearance. There can be no comparison between a heated clash of philosophies and ideas on social media in the aftermath of a massacre that shook the West like few others, and a disaster at a sporting event. Were someone ever to mock the deaths of those fans (oh, I don't know, say some an Aberdeen or Celtic fan for example) then the only possible reason for doing so is hatred of Rangers and naked bigotry. Chants about the 66 are not sung in an attempt to ensure higher standards of health and safety at sporting events.

 

Retweeting a highly offensive cartoon at someone who espouses violence to prevent freedom of expression is an intellectual and valid response to that dogmatism, whether you agree with it or not.

 

And there is of course the obvious difference in that anyone who mocks the deaths of innocents in an accident is no more than a sociopath; those of us who mock the cancerous, medieval, mumbo-jumbo that is religion are mocking an idea only.

Edited March 12, 2015 by The Real PapaBear