Sticks and stones (and bottles and cans)

[Frankie 8,186]

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/568-sticks-and-stones-and-bottles-and-cans

 

There can’t be many people who haven’t heard of or sang the nursery rhyme paraphrased in the title. Obviously the rhyme persuades the child victim of name-calling to ignore the taunt, to refrain from physical retaliation, and to remain calm and good-natured. I’m sure we’ve all we’ve all sat through the lecture from a parent or teacher referencing it after someone has teased us as a child!

 

According to various sources the rhyme is reported to have originally appeared in The Christian Recorder of March 1862, an American publication of the African Methodist Episcopal Church with a mainly black audience, where it is presented as an "old adage" in this form:

 

“Sticks and stones will break my bones

But words will never harm me.”

 

The phrase also appeared in 1872, where it is presented as advice in Tappy's Chicks: and Other Links Between Nature and Human Nature, by Mrs. George Cupples. The version used in that work runs:

 

“Sticks and stones may break my bones

But names will never hurt me.”

 

Whatever the version, the words are simple enough and the message a sensible one. Indeed, as much as the modern moral is aimed at children, clearly the initial readership must have sought comfort in the dreadful daily battles they had with racism and slavery in 19th century America. As such, I don’t think anyone should be embarrassed to reference the words in their adult life.

 

With that in mind, as the phoney bigotry war once again envelops Scottish football, perhaps we need to ask ourselves what we look to achieve as we take offence at chants we hear at stadia around the country. Do we really want people arrested with the threat of a five year jail term for singing nonsense that is easily shrugged off? Or is it more to do with the agreeable chance of punishment for rival clubs, not to mention the grandiose one-upmanship of tut-tutting at their alleged behaviour?

 

Referencing nursery rhymes is actually quite appropriate with respect to this issue as the overall debate is often simplistic. Not only will you often be ignored by politicians or other authority figures if you attempt to discuss the issue on ‘social’ media; but the quality of the media’s contribution rarely rises above that you’ll find in any primary school playground. Add in Scottish police and stewards playing the part of the bully, then generally the issue is all about who stamps their feet and shouts the loudest to get themselves heard.

 

Let’s look at one recent contribution from Helen Martin – an experienced writer and community editor of the Edinburgh Evening News which is part of the Scotsman group of newspapers.

 

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/helen-martin-who-will-tackle-the-hate-filled-football-thugs-1-4010703

 

According to her Linkedin page, Ms Martin has worked in the industry for almost 40 years so you’d expect a fairly mature view on most social issues. Unfortunately, in her column of 25th January, her eagerness to use unsubstantiated gossip was accompanied by the kind of hysterical comment I’d expect of an infant. Claims of Hibs fans at a December game at Ibrox being ‘pelted with coins, lighters, bottles and cans’ were juxtaposed with the suggestion widespread chants of ‘die you fen!an bast!rds’ were also aimed at the Hibees tucked away in the Govan West Corner. The clearly upset Ms Martin then concluded that ‘the Army be sent in’ to deal with the ‘hate-filled thugs’ the police were bizarrely ignoring.

 

To be fair to the journalist, despite the fact the chant above doesn’t exist, Rangers were actually forced to make a statement condemning their fans’ singing of the Billy Boys chant which references ‘being up to their knees in fen!an blood’. I won’t waste any time trying to defend that version of that particular battle hymn. However, quite simply the coin/lighter/bottle/can throwing incident(s) absolutely did not happen. I’ve been a season ticket holder at Ibrox for almost 20 years and have never seen such missiles thrown – and that includes from home or away fans during heated Old Firm games. I think the worst example is paper aeroplanes being made out of the material used in card displays. Ouch! And I’ve definitely never seen anyone smuggle in six cans of lager as us pre-determined football hooligans get body-searched at the turnstile!

 

Of course the daft article above isn’t the only recent example of faux offence being taken at football matches. We have Celtic fans reported to the SFA for smoke-bombs and sectarian/racist chanting while Motherwell fans invaded the pitch to goad Rangers supporters after their play-off win last year. Interestingly, it was two Hibs fans that became the first football supporters in Scotland to be convicted and sentenced under the offensive behaviour at football legislation in 2012. Both were fined and given banning orders for singing a ‘racially-offensive’ song on a train. Three years later Celtic and Scotland striker Leigh Griffiths was admonished by Edinburgh Sheriff Court after apologising for apparently singing the same song in a pub. Mobile phone footage certainly has a lot to answer for – strangely the supporter in Ms Martin’s piece decided against videoing the hail of missiles they sheltered from last month.

 

At this stage you’d be forgiven for thinking Scottish football is a hotbed of hooliganism and bigotry. Perhaps we do need the Army to intervene after all?! In actual fact the truth is a bit less neurotic. Yes, perhaps in the 1970s and 80s, there was an issue with regular poor behaviour but football stadia in Scotland are now largely safe places to visit. For one thing, most games are overly-policed and segregation is rarely required as most fans mix well in and around matches. However, even for higher category fixtures, genuine trouble is extremely rare and usually quickly dealt with. Will you hear the odd offensive song? Absolutely. Will you come across the odd imbecile? Sure but none of us are perfect!

 

With that final truism fresh in the mind, I think we all have to ask ourselves where this debate is going. Why should we and our children have our civil liberties ignored before we enter games? Do we really want clubs docked points for the odd actions of a few? Or are we not clever enough to note the games being played by football committees, politicians and police to secure a few extra votes or pounds? We certainly can’t trust certain sections of the media to report on the issue in a balanced, rational fashion so if we really want to press ahead with the tedious sanitisation of Scottish football, let’s continue to claim the moral high-ground anytime we can’t win on the field.

 

Or maybe, just maybe we could hum the rhyme at the top of the page, remember what real discrimination is and apply a bit more honesty to an issue which is overplayed and misrepresented time after time?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Frankie

[andy steel 0]

Thought provoking read, enjoyed that.

 

Clearly in an ideal world there would be no need for heavy handed legislation or the jailing of people for singing, something I find hard to justify no matter the content of the song. But it must be remembered - and I don't think it is, very often - that it is only following the introduction of legislation that the idea of people behaving properly is gaining any sort of traction. Fans were asked over and over again, for years and years, to get their houses in order and did not do so.

 

It's s difficult issue, no question, but I'm not convinced we fans haven't to a large extent brought this upon ourselves - all fans, btw, not just us.

[Frankie 8,186]

Thought provoking read, enjoyed that.

 

Clearly in an ideal world there would be no need for heavy handed legislation or the jailing of people for singing, something I find hard to justify no matter the content of the song. But it must be remembered - and I don't think it is, very often - that it is only following the introduction of legislation that the idea of people behaving properly is gaining any sort of traction. Fans were asked over and over again, for years and years, to get their houses in order and did not do so.

 

It's s difficult issue, no question, but I'm not convinced we fans haven't to a large extent brought this upon ourselves - all fans, btw, not just us.

 

I'm not so sure mate.

 

I don't think there's a big issue with bigotry and hooliganism and I wouldn't say there's been any huge improvement in the last few years. In fact, if anything, the resistance to the legislation and the lack of clarity in its application perhaps results in the odd spontaneous pockets of rejection we sometimes see.

 

I think the whole issue is somewhat manufactured and fundamentally dishonest. It's a self-fulfilling industry which makes people votes and, worse, money. Yes, of course we want to eradicate bigotry and I think we probably have - at least to as well a level as we can maybe expect given the tribal nature of football.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Frankie

[RANGERRAB 3,306]

Sectarianism is an industry in Scotland which now employs otherwise unemployable people in mostly in politics & the mhedia.

The slightest little incident gets blown out of proportion so as to justify the existence of these cretins most of whom have a clear anti-Rangers agenda and deliberately overlook the antics of other clubs some of which have much bigger problems than Rangers i.e. the yahoos.

Until we challenge these individuals it will continue & the club must do more likewise.

[calscot 0]

I think we can all agree that the media are as an intrinsic part of the problem.

[trublusince1982 243]

I'm not so sure mate.

 

I don't think there's a big issue with bigotry and hooliganism and I wouldn't say there's been any huge improvement in the last few years. In fact, if anything, the resistance to the legislation and the lack of clarity in its application perhaps results in the odd spontaneous pockets of rejection we sometimes see.

 

I think the whole issue is somewhat manufactured and fundamentally dishonest. It's a self-fulfilling industry which makes people votes and, worse, money. Yes, of course we want to eradicate bigotry and I think we probably have - at least to as well a level as we can maybe expect given the tribal nature of football.

 

I think the whole issue is somewhat manufactured and fundamentally dishonest. It's a self-fulfilling industry which makes people votes and, worse, money. Yes, of course we want to eradicate bigotry and I think we probably have - at least to as well a level as we can maybe expect given the tribal nature of football

 

spot on:thup:

[andy steel 0]

I'm not so sure mate.

 

I don't think there's a big issue with bigotry and hooliganism and I wouldn't say there's been any huge improvement in the last few years. In fact, if anything, the resistance to the legislation and the lack of clarity in its application perhaps results in the odd spontaneous pockets of rejection we sometimes see.

 

I think the whole issue is somewhat manufactured and fundamentally dishonest. It's a self-fulfilling industry which makes people votes and, worse, money. Yes, of course we want to eradicate bigotry and I think we probably have - at least to as well a level as we can maybe expect given the tribal nature of football.

 

Whatever else the reason, it's hardly to win votes - for every non-football fan who nods approvingly there's at least one supporter who fulminates against it.

 

I don't think there's a big issue with bigotry or hooliganism either, so why do we, for example, repeatedly shoot ourselves in the foot by belting out the favourites whenever we take a step forward? First game after admin, the coverage was unusually positive as the fans sold out the stadium. Papac sent off, chants, coverage negative. Against Hibs the other week, great performance, great bounce back from the 'blip', out comes the chants. It happens again and again and it is depriving our club of money - we should be sponsored by Toyota or Pepsi, not an online gambling site.

 

However, the kind of mindset seen in post #4, and 5 is doing us no favours at all. Either we deal with it - effectively or permanently - others will deal with it for us. I've been whining about this for over a decade online so we can hardly claim we didn't see it coming.

Edited January 26, 2016 by andy steel

[colinstein 294]

we're missing the most important points in this "furore"

 

Tims were arrested and charged with a "breach of the Peace" simply for having banners objecting to the "offensive behaviour act" and recognition surveillance at matches. So were The People at the Morton game.

This has all the hallmarks of a police state, Along with a national police force who are looking more and more paramilitary, democrats in this country should be worried.

 

When I was younger I was part of the demonstration against the butchering of Upper Clyde Ship Builders . We chanted for the TUC to call a general strike. A police constable intervened telling us to shut it or we'd be lifted,

An older comrade (who was English and therefore was unused to the BOP frequently used by the polis) rounded on the PC telling him not to "dare interfering with freedom of speech,"

Now arguing with the polis at the game was sure to get you huckled and that's what I expected.

Astonishingly the cop backed down.

 

There's a lesson here.

We will not let the the cops interfere with the working class' right to free speech !

Next time it happens, stand up to them !

 

Are you a man or a mouse ?

 

Squeak up !

Edited January 26, 2016 by colinstein

[Rousseau 9,508]

I'm offended that being offended is seemingly wrong. I may disagree with another's opinion, I may be offended by it, but I'm not going complain for them to be censored. It's a very slippery slope when we start tinkering with freedom of speech. As Voltaire says "I [may] Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

[andy steel 0]

I'm offended that being offended is seemingly wrong. I may disagree with another's opinion, I may be offended by it, but I'm not going complain for them to be censored. It's a very slippery slope when we start tinkering with freedom of speech. As Voltaire says "I [may] Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

 

I doubt anyone is thrilled at the thought of putting legal restrictions on the amount of abuse an individual can shout - and let's not pretend anyone is going to be lifted for reciting extracts from The Social Contract - as it seems over the top, but if that's what it takes then I'm for it, as there's not a lot of evidence to suggest the hard core are going to do it voluntarily.

 

This has all the hallmarks of a police state,

 

Get a grip. Are you allowed to organise marches, protests, events or in some other non-confrontational manner chastise the powers that be? Can you vote? Do people 'disappear' in our jails? Is torture commonplace? Do death squads roam the streets? Do we have functioning representative Parliaments? Are our elected officials accountable to the electorate? Are you and I allowed to post shite on message boards?

 

Comparing the hauling up of people who had decades to stop shouting about the IRA or the Pope and couldn't do it to the hideous oppression that millions of people had and have to suffer under totalitarian police states is outrageous.

 

I've been round this particular Mulberry bush way too many times already without ever achieving anything on the subject. What's the point?