Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Frankie 8,199]

2 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Sorry, but are you trying to say that some of the issue with the BBC is Rangers fault?

I think the BBC are wholly to blame for their poor coverage of our club and the dispute between us.  Some of the coverage has been one-sided, deliberately confrontational and often biased.

 

However, three years down the line since the 'ban', I do believe the club could be doing more to address the situation, communicate with the fans and find solutions.

[Bluedell 5,373]

10 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I must admit that I don't spend much (if any) time considering politics in relation to supporting my football club.  Some aspects of this thread though did get me thinking about it.  I accept that there would be a reluctance to be seen to be supporting a club which has fans who sing apparent or perceived bigoted songs (for fear of branded as one yourself).  That makes sense.  However what surprises me is that some politicians seem comfortable in displaying their allegiance to a club which  has fans who sing about support for the IRA.  I don't know about you guys but I could hear it clearly on TV during the game on Sunday.  So what I've been thinking is how (and when) did it become acceptable to associate with a terrorist group?  I do accept that Celtic (the club) has taken steps to disassociate itself with that, but so has Rangers in its statements about singing certain songs.  What's the difference?

You seem to be suggesting that Rangers fans sing bigoted songs while Celtic fans sing pro-IRA fans. I'd suggest that there's as much bigoted songs from Celtic fans as there are from ours, in addition to their pro-IRA songs.

 

As for why politicians are comfortable with this, it appears that anti-Protestant bigotry is acceptable whereas ant--RC bigotry isn't. Just look at the difference in outcry between the H word and the F word.

[Bluedell 5,373]

2 minutes ago, Frankie said:

I think the BBC are wholly to blame for their poor coverage of our club and the dispute between us.  Some of the coverage has been one-sided, deliberately confrontational and often biased.

 

However, three years down the line since the 'ban', I do believe the club could be doing more to address the situation, communicate with the fans and find solutions.

They've attempted a solution in the past but the BBC just carried on with their anti-Rangers agenda.

 

However given that there's a general reluctance elsewhere, particularly in the press, the club would be vilified or labelled as paranoid if they try and make a big issue with it by using the fans (if that's what you're suggesting),

[Bill 13,717]

The solutions I think the club should be pursuing don't involve the BBC.

[Soulsonic5791 408]

I personally don't see any solution to the BBC stand-off any time soon. They are not exactly good when it comes to contrition and admission of being in the wrong. That applies at network level as much as it does at PQ.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Soulsonic5791

[buster. 4,846]

Regards the current 'relationship' between the Rangers support/brand and the SNP. My impression from afar is that the heightened political polarisation that came from an Independence Referendum coinciding with the relatively new medium of social media took things to a level of evident, in your face anomosity that hadn't been seen before.

 

The fact that some Rangers supporters politically lean towards the SNP will in many cases probably be an opinion formed prior to the more in your face general confrontation.

 

Bottomline IMO, is that whilst I respect those whose politics stem from or are linked to the football team they support, equally they should respect those whose politics have nothing to do with the team they support.

[Frankie 8,199]

8 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

They've attempted a solution in the past but the BBC just carried on with their anti-Rangers agenda.

 

However given that there's a general reluctance elsewhere, particularly in the press, the club would be vilified or labelled as paranoid if they try and make a big issue with it by using the fans (if that's what you're suggesting),

I think the ongoing coverage means it's very difficult for the club to agree a solution knowing a large number of supporters would go tonto at the first sign of any perceived one-sided stuff.

 

As such, I feel the club could communicate better with fans in that regard.  First of all, it's been three years since the initial problem that started the 'ban' so I'm not sure that's even the issue at hand now.  Since then there's been a list of fairly circumstantial stuff (usually catalogued by 26th in the PQ thread) which you or I may be aware of but many more won't.  Is it from an agenda, or from bias or just editorial failings and poor quality commentary?  I'd argue a mix but I'm biased myself...

 

In the meantime, Rangers fans lose out.  As such, I think Rangers should provide a regular update as to why the 'ban' remains and include updated reasons/evidence.  Of course some will scoff but at least we'll be better informed.

 

Finally, when I say imperfect, I think our PR is often poor and that's why we're fire-fighting so often.

 

[Soulsonic5791 408]

Apologies in advance for thread drift.

 

I have a hypothetical question to ask.

 

Imagine that the Rangers support was whiter than white when it came to the songbook and fan behaviour was beyond reproach and exemplary, what do you think the haters would focus on then in terms of a metaphorical stick to beat us with?

 

Because, let's not kid ourselves, were that situation to be the case, the haters would not go away and the sectarianism perpetrated by them would not disappear. 

[Frankie 8,199]

10 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

I personally don't see any solution to the BBC stand-off any time soon. They are not exactly good when it comes to contrition and admission of being in the wrong. That applies at network level as much as it does PQ.

Agreed.

 

However, is there a way to word a solution as to keep all parties (fairly) happy, then I'd also say yes.  Unfortunately, it may well be there's an equal lack of appetite at Rangers.  King and Traynor in particular won't be keen to be seen as conceding ground.

[stewarty 1,896]

16 hours ago, Bill said:

Oh do you really think so?

Hahahahaha