BJK today

[craig 5,199]

Make that "debating" and we are on a decent course. I gave my opinion on how I view BJK and "Go home you Huns" et al. If others see it differently, no problem. Putting people into factions is wrong though, or at least not helpful. It almost puts those not outright against it in the "for it" faction, when the starting points of tackling the subject are rather different.

 

Why are you refusing to call a spade a spade? You can't try to exchange the word debating for defending if it isn't so. You are trying to defend the singing of BJK as "banter". So whilst you may be debating it there can be little doubt that you are indeed trying to defend it.

 

The mere fact some people condone its singing whilst others do not means "factions" are being self-fulfilled.

[craig 5,199]

Ahem ... the song is NOT about child abuse, but the vile organisation that is Celtic FC, their cover-up back then, their squirming now, their getting away with it and that one of their greatest ever managers knew about it and apparently did next to nothing. And in that it is a song to rile the Yahoos. You put it to a level beyond that context and applying morals or ethics that goes beyond what the singers aim at. Ask any singer of that song and they will tell you that they won't condone child abuse, no matter where and who committed it.

 

And ask any singer of that song what they are singing about and they will tell you that it is about jock stein being part of a cover up of.... Child abuse. I'm really not sure how people can suggest that it isn't about child abuse. Without the child abuse there is no song.

 

It was boabie I think who said that when he sings the song it is a direct accusation about the cover-up, which is fair enough. However, what many in the same mindset are completely ignoring is that the intent of your singing often doesn't matter - it is the perception that matters and how it is portrayed in the wider community. If we really want to make accusations against Celtic then I would argue that rather than sintging BJK there should be an actual concerted campaign to have it investigated. How many Bears have been activists in this regard and how many simply sing the song ? Are they REALLY trying to raise awareness about an institutional cover-up or are they merely attempting to point-score ?

 

So, in just the same way that we are defending BJK as being an accusation about a cover up rather than point-scoring, I assume that we will no longer complain about the Green brigade's IRA-Oke given that they argue they are not singing about terrorist groups but rather are making political statements in their songs.... right ?

[der Berliner 3,249]

A) this was about BJK being banter targetting the Yahoos. B) Terrorist songs are not considered banter. At least IMHO. Hence there is no relevance in trying to compare them here when we talk about banter.

 

Even if they are political statements (or freedom of speech), they are banned due to Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006. No ifs and buts, yet some legal people in Scotland seem to think that their country does not fall under either act and fail - constantly - to act according to it. For ... decades now. Never noticed that Scotland left the territory of UK jursidcition.

 

It allowed this can of worms to be opened and a lot of worms being out and about. BTW, those same acts would actually cover a few Loyalist songs sung by us (rarely), given the proscribed organisations they go on about.

 

But back to BJK. The song is sung to rile the Scum about their sins of the past. Some may deem this distasteful, but as has been said above, imagine, for a second. if nothing was being sung at all regarding this? Who would actually care about it? Some keyboard warriors on various fanboards, people ignored by the public out there.

Even at the height of the storm that came up from England, you were hard pressed to hear the name Torbett and Celtic named together ... in Scotland. Instead, they whipped up a story about a chap who once worked for Rangers and was reported to police and fired. The silence thereafter is deafening again.

 

Hence, on top of annoying the Scum with this song, the singers also keep it in the public domain when it is being sung at LIVE games. So those not aware might ask questions.

 

We could also abstain from airing it ... and leave that dark chapter of Yahoo history neatly covered up in well spun cobwebs never to be disturbed ...

Edited December 27, 2016 by der Berliner

[Scott7 5,175]

So, the movers and shakers of this world will say to themselves "there's guys at the fitba singing something, best look into it, eh?"

 

Ah, well.

[Bearman 9]

So, the movers and shakers of this world will say to themselves "there's guys at the fitba singing something, best look into it, eh?"

 

Ah, well.

 

Confused listeners from afar trying to make out the chant would conclude Big Jock (Wallace) Knew (how to win trebles!) That's real banter.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

Maybe it's our new 6'4" Chinese target man??.......

[Bearman 9]

Maybe it's our new 6'4" Chinese target man??.......

 

...or the defender Wai Yu Sing Dum Song

[craig 5,199]

A) this was about BJK being banter targetting the Yahoos. B) Terrorist songs are not considered banter. At least IMHO. Hence there is no relevance in trying to compare them here when we talk about banter.

 

Even if they are political statements (or freedom of speech), they are banned due to Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006. No ifs and buts, yet some legal people in Scotland seem to think that their country does not fall under either act and fail - constantly - to act according to it. For ... decades now. Never noticed that Scotland left the territory of UK jursidcition.

 

Can you point me to the section of the Terrorism Act which would deal with their supposed illegal singing ? I just took a look at it and couldn't find anything. Be specific please because whilst we know that Celtic get away with a lot it would surprise that they actually get away with illegal acts of promoting Terrorism, particularly when it is encapsulated within legislation to prevent it.

 

It allowed this can of worms to be opened and a lot of worms being out and about. BTW, those same acts would actually cover a few Loyalist songs sung by us (rarely), given the proscribed organisations they go on about.

 

But back to BJK. The song is sung to rile the Scum about their sins of the past. Some may deem this distasteful, but as has been said above, imagine, for a second. if nothing was being sung at all regarding this? Who would actually care about it? Some keyboard warriors on various fanboards, people ignored by the public out there.

Even at the height of the storm that came up from England, you were hard pressed to hear the name Torbett and Celtic named together ... in Scotland. Instead, they whipped up a story about a chap who once worked for Rangers and was reported to police and fired. The silence thereafter is deafening again.

 

Imagine, for a second, that the song being sung does absolutely NOTHING to instigate any kind of reaction or investigation. I give boabie credence for his personal belief that he is making a direct accusation about it but I would contend that the majority aren't singing it in some attempt to pubicise the institutional cover-up. Further, can you explain to me why the same people singing BJK for 90 minutes on a game day don't appear to have taken the altogether more tangible route of becoming activists to get a public investigation into the cover-ups away from the game day singing ? They seem, to me at least, to be "90 minute crusaders" - if it is of such concern to them why aren't they taking it beyond game day ? Child abuse is appalling - if Rangers fans are so appalled by it happening at Celtic and being covered up, where is the activism to highlight it ?

 

"If nothing was being sung who would care" - I think you are mistaken if you think that 50,000 singing this song every other week has any kind of meaningful impact in terms of action against the cover-ups. Indeed, if anything, the spotlight is actually much more likely to be shone on us as being insensitive to the victims. Am I saying we should therefore not sing it just to prevent us from being portrayed in a bad light ? Hmmm, I am saying that if this truly is a cause that we care about then we should be more active in demanding a proper investigation - but we aren't.

 

If it is just to "rile the scum" ( I don't really like us stooping to those levels of description but your prerogative) then Bluedell's earlier comments about morals come into play again. Whether you sing it as an accusation towards Celtic or not, it shows lack of sensitivity towards those affected by the abuse. If it is done as petty point-scoring (which you allude to) then, IMHO, it is an incredibly poor attempt - we have much ammunition against them to "rile them up" but to use BJK is lacking in morals, again in my opinion - because, whether you believe it or not, others including the victims themselves are affected by it. It completely ignores the emotional distress that this brings to the victims of the abuses.

 

 

Hence, on top of annoying the Scum with this song, the singers also keep it in the public domain when it is being sung at LIVE games. So those not aware might ask questions.

 

I would argue that they actually are NOT keeping the abuses in the public domain and, instead, are keeping the whole #Rangersbad mantra in the public domain. And, again, if anyone who was oblivious asked questions what would the answer be ? More than likely "There is a belief that Jock Stein knew about institutional cover-ups with regards to child sex abuse at Celtic" - and if that is the case then it kind of blows the "It isn't about child abuse" theory out the water.

 

We could also abstain from airing it ... and leave that dark chapter of Yahoo history neatly covered up in well spun cobwebs never to be disturbed ...

 

So what you are suggesting is that the ONLY means to keep this dark part of their history from being discussed is singing it at games..... yet we have all manner of petitions websites and petitions themselves going on about various "issues" of lesser significance.... why is it that there doesn't seem to have been a concerted campaign, in every day life rather than for 90 minutes on a game day, to have it properly investigated ?

 

My theory is because we aren't actually that interested in being activists in this regard and are doing nothing more than petty point scoring. Those who find it immoral to be signing it will probably agree with me. Those who defend the right to sing it are more than likely defending it on the basis that they are somehow continuing to shine a light on the institutional cover-up.

 

And I guess from that we all individually need to take a stand.

 

Having recently witnessed the reaction of grown men here in Bermuda when announcing their own abuses when younger and how emotionally distraught they were I personally find it incredibly insensitive to the victims to be bringing it up UNLESS you truly are interested in seeing those responsible brought to justice. Even then, there are far better ways of going about that, with probably better results, than singing it at Rangers games. I just don't believe that there are too many who are like boabie who see it as being a proper accusation rather than point-scoring.

 

I've said my piece and probably best if I bow out now too - because I struggle when we try to defend what is clearly insensitive material as being "just banter" and get perennially offended when Celtic sing whatever it is they sing and we get offended about. Seems hypocritical to me.

[Scott7 5,175]

Very well put.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Can you point me to the section of the Terrorism Act which would deal with their supposed illegal singing ? I just took a look at it and couldn't find anything. Be specific please because whilst we know that Celtic get away with a lot it would surprise that they actually get away with illegal acts of promoting Terrorism, particularly when it is encapsulated within legislation to prevent it.

 

I think this from the 2006 Act would cover it.