Banner for Saturday

[craig 5,198]

Once again your reply says to me that you didn't really read my post and understand it. The amount of agreements you get on your post shows that that's a malaise of the forum.

 

If you can point to the bit where I condone a banner of Savile then I'll be able to respond. As it is, you seem to have replied to something I didn't write.

 

I will say again (sigh). I think ALL our banners should be Rangers and football related - I can't make that clearer, and I've been totally consistent on that.

 

BUT I really don't agree with equating slagging off paedophiles and their cover ups with mocking innocent deaths. Both are petty point scoring but one is nowhere near as bad as the other.

 

If you want to discuss either of those two points then I'm happy to do so. Your current stance seems to be that you disagree with me and therefore both those points.

 

On a final note, I saw Celtic were applauded for highlighting the plight of the Palestinians against certain opposition, maybe the same people would applaud Rangers fans for highlighting the plight of paedophile victims against certain opposition...

 

It's the massive moral hypocrisy I was highlighting, which you don't seem to see, and just equate the two very uneven sides.

 

As for Savile, I don't really see the relevance beyond tenuous, and don't see that as part of the debate.

 

Perhaps the amount of agreements on my post shows that people actually agree with what I posted, and disagree with what you posted. Doesn't mean that I am right, or indeed wrong, but clearly some agree with the thrust of my post and as you are taking a diametrically opposite view, they are disagreeing with your post. Not everyone has to think you are right all of the time

 

Petty point scoring is bad whatever way you look at it. From where I am sitting you are attempting to legitimize any parading of banners of paedophiles as attempting to expose institutionalized abuse at Parkhead - whereas I simply cannot see that to be the case - it is abundantly clear that it is petty point scoring. You may struggle with the equating of the two - but IMHO you have to ignore the subject matter of paedophilia and innocent lost victims - why ? Because the simple reality is that any banners from RFC fans of paedophiles have absolutely ZERO basis in trying to expose that institutional abuse at Parkhead years ago. Any banner is not being done to highlight that. And that, in my mind, makes it every bit as bad as them mocking the loss of innocent lives. I would agree with you that "one is nowhere near as bad as the other".... IF it was the case that the intent was to highlight that cover up. But we BOTH know that isn't the case. Justify it all you want Cal, but nobody can convince me that this would be some noble deed rather than petty point scoring.

 

I know you have said all banners should be Rangers related - and I 100% agree with that - so I'm not sure what the debate is on that front or why the need for the *sigh*

 

Celtic were applauded for that stance because, as we all know, they have the Scottish media in their back pocket. Not for one minute do I believe you are naïve enough to think that the same people would applaud Rangers fans for highlighting paedophile victim. We ALL know that the slant on it would be that Rangers fans are insensitive, sub-human, knuckle-dragging bigots. Surely you don't believe that we would get a fair hearing over such banners.

 

I don't see the massive moral hypocrisy. I could if this were, as I said, a legitimate attempt to highlight and expose a massive cover up from decades ago. But it wouldn't be. It would be point-scoring - and that, for me, makes it every bit as bad as mocking the Ibrox disaster victims. Where you see it as highlighting abuse cover-ups I see it as point-scoring and that makes it abhorrent to me as it is wholly insensitive to the emotions and feelings of anyone who suffered at the hands of such beasts as Savile and Torbet.

 

But, as has been the case on a few things recently... We will have to just agree to disagree

[craig 5,198]

Personally, I wouldn't give them any amo either. I just reasoned why it would be "appropriate" to have the odd banner re Penn State. IMHO, it should be all about Rangers in song and banner. Much of their stuff is about being for something, whereas quite a few of our older songbook was against something. Which can and has been switch according to a certain agenda. This is plain to see for anyone willing to do so, only that there are very few in the places "who count" wanting to do it (perhaps on purpose).

 

On the other hand, football "banter" can take on many faces, some quite silly and amusing (Blowing Bubbles, Nakamura ate my dog), some downright vile. But in nigh all cases, not least in the more civilized countries, that hardly ever goes beyond the football fan context. And the latter is being violated in our case ... while the Yahoos get away "with murder" ("Where's you head, Sgt. Rigsby?" (can't remember his name right now) and all their IRAoke.

 

I see the point you are making dB - but I just cant reconcile myself to Penn State/Savile banners being "appropriate". I know what you are getting at but appropriate is a word I wouldn't use, and I cant really think of one to use. But the bigger issue here is that if we went down this route it would be a massive own goal for us.

 

Unfortunately, IMHO, we are now in a politically correct world gone mad - and much, it must be said, due to the faux outrage of Celtic fans to do with anything Rangers.

 

Something like "Nakamura ate my dog" whilst being funny would, now, be punishable by arrest under the OBFA I think. Sad though it is.

 

I just wish we could go back to the days where we could be seen as nothing more than football fans and enjoy the footy - laughing at the mocking banners we unfurl and getting annoyed at theirs, whilst grudgingly accepting they are funny.

 

But sadly Celtic fans and the rest of Scottish football have a hatred towards us like no other Club anywhere in the world suffers. The toxicity of Scottish football will take generations to overcome. And that is a sorry state of our game.

[craig 5,198]

Like with some replies above, you took a different angle of viewing it. The above though is rather simple, if you take a step back from concentrating of the horrors of child abuse. For mentioning that is showing them up for their selective memories .... while declaring us being the source of all evils on this planet. If someone airs BJK, the media runs a war against us for being vile and mean and whatnot, essentially ignoring the whole context if it being cynical football fan "banter"(even though it has not much of a football context ... not that Penny Arcade has much of that either). See, they rant all their zombie, sevco and huns bile over us with not a whisper, but some amused chuckles in the media. You can soak that up if you wish and take it manfullly. But I for one would allow for some "retaliation", even if it may not strike a cord with everyone.

 

The bigotted stuff was - obviously - referring to their songbook and constant IRA-, Huns- and zombie-bile hailed at us, while we are barred from uttering words that have been taken out of context and been given a "can be offended by uttering it" meaning, such as Fenian. Which is rather peculiar, as when we sing it, as anyone would know, we do not refer to some assumed Roman-Catholic stuff, but the Fenian Brotherhood that became the IRA and the latter's members being widely known as Fenians. And from that you can come to the lovely term "sectarian", which miraculously hardly ever features when it comes to the Scum and their folk's antic (even the most vile IRA stuff), but solely our songbook and our fans' behaviour. Hence, bigotted hypocrites.

 

 

 

 

Just in case, I have been advocating the dropping of any Fenian, FTP and similar stuff ever since we were fined for it by UEFA. What I don't agree to is the fact that it is only us that get any sort of treatment for some unsavioury songs. The completly cowardly behaviour of media and authorities in this respect, as they largely only target us from behind the shield of one UEFA ruling on TBB and FTP. Hypocritically again, as while they hare after us for "F@ck the Pope and the IRA" on the one hand denying us the "freedom of speech", which makes a re-appearance though when allowing large scale anti-Israel activities at and in the Scumhut whithout a snort ... but have a go at UEFA, rather than the culprits. The pendulum swings both ways, but apparently not in Scotland. It is this I have an objection to, despite wanting certain songs to vanish.

 

As for the Saville banners, see above. It is a reminder to the Scum that they haven't as clean a house as they like to portray themselves - and Scottish authorities didn't act as they might have (Yes, I think the authorities could have done similar things as the NCAA lot did, had there been any will ... which in turn was very much evident in our admin days). It is sure some cynical stuff to have, but every now and then such a reminder brings them down to earth. And perhaps the odd media chap will take up on this ... how naughty and bad and uncivilized we are. Well, tell them that we don't want to gas our players then. Much of what they write is emptyheaded nonsense anyway.

 

Regarding the part in bold dB. I don't believe that you can generalize that statement. Sure, use it in defence of Rangers fans if you like - but that is absolutely NOT the case with all Rangers fans. Some DO use the word Fenian to describe RC's. My own mother tomorrow, if Celtic win, will be calling them (in the privacy of her own home) "fenian bastards" and I can assure you that it will be a reference to Celtic as an RC club and not anything to do with the fenian brotherhood (she wouldn't even know what that is).

 

Thankfully she doesn't say it very often and any time she does if I am there I TRY to educate her and try to get her to use some other adjective. But she is of a different generation.

 

I'm sure many of our fans do use the word as a descriptor for the IRA and the fenian brotherhood - but likewise it would not surprise me in the least that a large minority of our fans also use it as a descriptor of Celtic fans and the RC faith too.

 

Obviously I could be well off the mark though.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Regarding the part in bold dB. I don't believe that you can generalize that statement. Sure, use it in defence of Rangers fans if you like - but that is absolutely NOT the case with all Rangers fans. Some DO use the word Fenian to describe RC's. My own mother tomorrow, if Celtic win, will be calling them (in the privacy of her own home) "fenian bastards" and I can assure you that it will be a reference to Celtic as an RC club and not anything to do with the fenian brotherhood (she wouldn't even know what that is).

 

Thankfully she doesn't say it very often and any time she does if I am there I TRY to educate her and try to get her to use some other adjective. But she is of a different generation.

 

I'm sure many of our fans do use the word as a descriptor for the IRA and the fenian brotherhood - but likewise it would not surprise me in the least that a large minority of our fans also use it as a descriptor of Celtic fans and the RC faith too.

 

Obviously I could be well off the mark though.

 

Well, I consider you older than me and thus your mum does belong to a generation that has its own views on certain things. But I doubt that your mum - or many in her age group will be up at Ibrox et al hurling that kind of "banter" at the opposition and even if that was the case, the police would probably refrain from lifting them, or her.

 

You will obviously have the "they breath our oxygen" folk, no doubt about that. But generally, I would assume that most of those entering the our ground these days are rather sane and normal people, who "mean" abuse like "Fenian bastard" as much as calling the ref a cheat or a w plus anker. They let some steam off, fall back into ages long gone by for 90 mins plus pub-stoppage time ... and that's it.

Edited September 9, 2016 by der Berliner

[craig 5,198]

Well, I consider you older than me and thus your mum does belong to a generation that has its own views on certain things. But I doubt that your mum - or many in her age group will be up at Ibrox et al hurling that kind of "banter" at the opposition and even if that was the case, the police would probably refrain from lifting them, or her.

 

You will obviously have the "they breath our oxygen" folk, no doubt about that. But generally, I would assume that most of those entering the our ground these days are rather sane and normal people, who "mean" abuse like "Fenian bastard" as much as calling the ref a cheat or a w plus anker. They let some steam off, fall back into ages long gone by for 90 mins plus pub-stoppage time ... and that's it.

 

But there again you are making the bold assumption that it is a generational thing. Again, I would be HAPPY to be wrong but I also suspect that many of the younger generation have no idea what the fenian brotherhood is either - and also suspect that a great deal of our support still use the word fenian to describe Celtic and the RC faith. I would happily be wrong but I have my suspicions.

 

With regards to your last sentence I couldn't agree more. But therein lies the problem - I would suspect that many of the sane Celtic fans (are there any left ) would argue the same thing - lets all slag each other for 90 minutes, then hit the pub for a pint TOGETHER afterwards. Shankly's famous words, whilst very poignant, are incorrect. For when he said "Football is more than a game, its life or death" (or words to that effect) he was wrong. Football IS a game. One we are all passionate about. But it is still only a game. The sooner the Rangers-haters see that the better.

Edited September 9, 2016 by craig

[colinstein 294]

Once again your reply says to me that you didn't really read my post and understand it. The amount of agreements you get on your post shows that that's a malaise of the forum.

 

If you can point to the bit where I condone a banner of Savile then I'll be able to respond. As it is, you seem to have replied to something I didn't write.

 

I will say again (sigh). I think ALL our banners should be Rangers and football related - I can't make that clearer, and I've been totally consistent on that.

 

BUT I really don't agree with equating slagging off paedophiles and their cover ups with mocking innocent deaths. Both are petty point scoring but one is nowhere near as bad as the other.

 

If you want to discuss either of those two points then I'm happy to do so. Your current stance seems to be that you disagree with me and therefore both those points.

 

On a final note, I saw Celtic were applauded for highlighting the plight of the Palestinians against certain opposition, maybe the same people would applaud Rangers fans for highlighting the plight of paedophile victims against certain opposition...

 

It's the massive moral hypocrisy I was highlighting, which you don't seem to see, and just equate the two very uneven sides.

 

As for Savile, I don't really see the relevance beyond tenuous, and don't see that as part of the debate.

 

we haven't finished our banner yet so it won't be ready. It's blue and white with a red hammer and sickle. It says "Socialists for Rangers " and we've got comrade Lenin on a white tank crossing a river. His right arm is extended forward holding a scroll pointing to a city on the other river bank. There are 7 hills in the background

[calscot 0]

Perhaps the amount of agreements on my post shows that people actually agree with what I posted, and disagree with what you posted. Doesn't mean that I am right, or indeed wrong, but clearly some agree with the thrust of my post and as you are taking a diametrically opposite view, they are disagreeing with your post. Not everyone has to think you are right all of the time

 

I don't know how to explain it clearer, your post was virtually unrelated to mine, so the fact that people agree is shall we say, just a bit strange... Maybe they read it in isolation rather than seeing is as "diametrically opposed" to mine which wouldn't make much sense.

 

I can't see how it makes them disagree with me when there is no connection. If anyone wants to disagree with the actual points I make then they are entitled to and I'll happily debate them.

 

I do realise I'm in a minority when it comes to sticking with Rangers related songs and banners, so I don't actually expect people to agree with me, and that's ok.

 

Petty point scoring is bad whatever way you look at it. From where I am sitting you are attempting to legitimize any parading of banners of paedophiles as attempting to expose institutionalized abuse at Parkhead - whereas I simply cannot see that to be the case -

 

Like I said I didn't say that, although I do see that point, although I essentially disagree with it.

 

However, I did restate my point hoping that you might actually get it the second time (sigh). Maybe you would care to read it again. You equated mocking of paedophiles and their protectors with mocking innocent victims who died in a terrible accident. I disagree with that moral equality.

 

it is abundantly clear that it is petty point scoring. You may struggle with the equating of the two - but IMHO you have to ignore the subject matter of paedophilia and innocent lost victims - why ? Because the simple reality is that any banners from RFC fans of paedophiles have absolutely ZERO basis in trying to expose that institutional abuse at Parkhead years ago. Any banner is not being done to highlight that.

 

And that, in my mind, makes it every bit as bad as them mocking the loss of innocent lives. I would agree with you that "one is nowhere near as bad as the other".... IF it was the case that the intent was to highlight that cover up. But we BOTH know that isn't the case. Justify it all you want Cal, but nobody can convince me that this would be some noble deed rather than petty point scoring.

 

Read my post again, "Both are petty point scoring". The point is that if you take that part away and legitimise them, one would be against paedophiles and covering them up and the other would be against Rangers fans breathing. That makes them NOT EQUAL. So with the pettiness, one is pretty bad, the other is pretty much psychopathic.

 

I know you have said all banners should be Rangers related - and I 100% agree with that - so I'm not sure what the debate is on that front or why the need for the *sigh*

 

You made up a story about me condoning banners of Savile, I've explained my position many times and so you should be able to avoid misunderstanding me in a kneejerk way, due to reading my previous posts.

 

Celtic were applauded for that stance because, as we all know, they have the Scottish media in their back pocket. Not for one minute do I believe you are naïve enough to think that the same people would applaud Rangers fans for highlighting paedophile victim. We ALL know that the slant on it would be that Rangers fans are insensitive, sub-human, knuckle-dragging bigots. Surely you don't believe that we would get a fair hearing over such banners.

 

That's what I was pointing out. "It's the massive moral hypocrisy I was highlighting".

 

I don't see the massive moral hypocrisy.

 

That's strange, you just pointed it out in your previous paragraph...

 

I could if this were, as I said, a legitimate attempt to highlight and expose a massive cover up from decades ago. But it wouldn't be. It would be point-scoring - and that, for me, makes it every bit as bad as mocking the Ibrox disaster victims. Where you see it as highlighting abuse cover-ups I see it as point-scoring

 

You're making up how I see things again. I agree using the paedophile stuff as point scoring is bad - but like I say if you think they are the same as mocking innocent victims then I totally disagree for obvious reasons that I've explained. IF we were mocking the victims of Torbet etc then I'd get your point. The equivalent for them would be if there was a mass murder of Rangers fans and they mocked the murderer.

 

and that makes it abhorrent to me as it is wholly insensitive to the emotions and feelings of anyone who suffered at the hands of such beasts as Savile and Torbet.

 

I think here you are falling for their rhetoric. This makes no sense. Were the authorities and media insensitive to the Saville victims when it all came out? Surely it's what they want?

 

I haven't been a victim of that kind of stuff but I've been badly injured when attacked by neds, and that also affected me psychologically, and if people had a verbal go at the perpetrators (if they were ever caught) even now, I would be completely fine about it.

 

I think it's a lame, twisted defence by them to make us look like were evil once again, for bringing it up.

 

But, as has been the case on a few things recently... We will have to just agree to disagree

 

But it would be nice if you disagreed with what I actually said and meant...

[scotjo 19]

Ok ,got a bit carried away with it, a banner with a photo of a deodorant can would be more appropriate and funnier.

[JFK-1 1,674]

I think the crux of what everybody opposed to any Savile display or any paedophile reference at all boiled down to a single short sentence is that any reference to Jimmy Savile or any paedophillia at all is an extremely bad idea and not remotely funny either.

 

It's a sporting occasion not an issues gathering and aside from being insensitive on many levels it doesn't have a shred of humour about it and would get us absolutely nothing but criticism from all quarters including the neutral home and abroad.

[ian1964 10,416]

Haven''t done any actually, how much have you done and will you be able to sing, ya dipstick?

 

What are you on about?......