Rangers staff risk stoking sectarianism hints Glasgow council boss Susan Aitken

[Darthter 542]

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think the basis of your obvious and frankly amusing frustration is your constant reduction of opinion into pedantry. This isn't a court of law or a PhD thesis. Neither are you, or anyone else, sitting as judge in these matters or entitled to demand and set standards of "evidence". Many things are substantially true without the need for evidential backing. One of them is that Rangers has long been a focus for unionism in Scotland. You don't like this being true but it's no less so for your dismissal. 

 

Here's a thought. Why don't you now assert moral superiority by claiming failure to provide your "evidence" is categoric vindication of your position? I'm sure that would make you feel less frustrated.

Talk about back peddling....

 

The source of my frustration is constantly being told that as a Scottish Independence & SNP supporter, I can not possibly be a Rangers fan.

 

YOU were the person who mentioned "decades of evidence" to support the claim that Rangers are a Unionist club.....now it would appear that Rangers have been a "focus for unionism in Scotland" - That's 2 completely different things and doesn't support the claim that Rangers ARE a unionist club.  

 

You are also the very person that demands evidence in plenty other threads, to support particular points....and rarely provide anything other than opinion.

 

I can happily provide evidence to support the claim that the Club is a Royalist supporting club....

 

I support Rangers, not because of Religion, and not because of politics.....but because I want to - I don't need any other reason.

[Bill 13,717]

You're clearly desperate to be a victim here but it won't flush and no descent into pedantry will help your case. No one has ever said you cannot be a Rangers supporter and vote SNP. What has been said is that it represents a contradiction that's difficult to resolve and the only way you can accommodate these two things is by reinventing Rangers traditions. I don't ever see separatists reinventing the SNP as a pro-Ranger party.

 

Try to calm down a little. I have no problem if you go on living your contradiction. I'll go on calling it a contradiction, which I believe it is.

[Scott7 5,179]

I wonder if Bill on reflection might have said a Unionists’ club.

 

I wonder if there had been no celtic might the traditions of Rangers supporters been different.

 

Darth’s reason for supporting Rangers is entirely correct.

[Walterbear 557]

1 hour ago, Darthter said:

acutally...it kinda is.  It is The club, Club1872 & the supporters that are making the accusation of bias.  The councillors simply need to show that they followed procedure.

If you make an accusation against anyone, in any situation, you are required to provide the proof.

Technically you are correct Darther but I disagree politically. If anyone wants my vote they have to prove to me they are above board. So if they do what Aitken was trying to do (bully Rangers to avoid scrutiny) that will affect our perception and vote. 

 

Now clearly if 1872 are shown to be completely wrong then it is another matter but if the council are found to have technically behaved correctly but there is still a suspicion of cloak and daggers (for example if they don’t clearly explain the decision the 3 of them and head of licencing made and offer some more detail of the Ibrox and Cessnock June CC meeting which justifies their position) they will not come out of it well politically, at least not with Rangers supporters and possibly not with some others. I don believe the CC meeting is a red herring. I think it is part of the story. If the councillors did not have the competency to act outside the licensing board (and you have to expect 1872 have done their homework) it is damaging to Aitken & co, but if a reconvened licence Boad meeting then simply refers to a “show of hands” from Ibrox & Cessnock in June that will not satisfy me as I will want to know what the level of discussion was, how man folk were there, what was the evidence Dornan presented etc. In all of that, from a political perspective GCC have to prove they are acting impeccably and not just following a technical process which has potential been hijacked or abused. Once trust has gone it’s gone. 

 

 

[Big Jaws 570]

5 minutes ago, Darthter said:

 

 

The source of my frustration is constantly being told that as a Scottish Independence & SNP supporter, I can not possibly be a Rangers fan.

 

 

In fairness he hasn't been the only poster that has championed that position. What I find astonishing and completely without irony is that at least two of the other posters cited that the SNP were totalitarian. Personally I couldn't careless about the SNP as apolitical party nor do I give a rats ass who votes for them but I do care that Rangers supporters are saying other Rangers supporters cant be True Rangers supporters if they dont think or vote in a particular way. That for me is the very definition of totalitarian.

[JohnMc 2,473]

44 minutes ago, Bill said:

You're clearly desperate to be a victim here but it won't flush and no descent into pedantry will help your case. No one has ever said you cannot be a Rangers supporter and vote SNP. What has been said is that it represents a contradiction that's difficult to resolve and the only way you can accommodate these two things is by reinventing Rangers traditions. I don't ever see separatists reinventing the SNP as a pro-Ranger party.

 

Try to calm down a little. I have no problem if you go on living your contradiction. I'll go on calling it a contradiction, which I believe it is.

Ok, I'll bite. So can you be a Rangers supporter and a Roman Catholic, or a Muslim? Are those things a "contradiction that's difficult to resolve"? Does that require "reinventing Rangers"? We're all Proddies Bill, a bit of July marching, some sneaky FTP when no one's listening, eh? 

 

What about if you're not British, say you're Irish or Turkish or German? Or are those things not aligned either. Are they a big contradiction too? Do they require some more reinvention? Is dB living his contradiction then? I mean c'mon, we're the quintessentially British club after all, are we not? 

 

One thing any organisation that's 146 years old has had to do is reinvent itself and move with the times. If it doesn't it'll die Bill, nothing surer. 

[Walterbear 557]

2 hours ago, Darthter said:

acutally...it kinda is.  It is The club, Club1872 & the supporters that are making the accusation of bias.  The councillors simply need to show that they followed procedure.

If you make an accusation against anyone, in any situation, you are required to provide the proof.

Technically you are correct Darther but I disagree politically. If anyone wants my vote they have to prove to me they are above board. So if they do what Aitken was trying to do (bully Rangers to avoid scrutiny) that will affect our perception and vote. 

 

Now clearly if 1872 are shown to be completely wrong then it is another matter but if the council are found to have technically behaved correctly but there is still a suspicion of cloak and daggers (for example if they don’t clearly explain the decision the 3 of them and head of licencing made and offer some more detail of the Ibrox and Cessnock June CC meeting which justifies their position) they will not come out of it well politically, at least not with Rangers supporters and possibly not with some others. I don believe the CC meeting is a red herring. I think it is part of the story. If the councillors did not have the competency to act outside the licensing board (and you have to expect 1872 have done their homework) it is damaging to Aitken & co, but if a reconvened licence Boad meeting then simply refers to a “show of hands” from Ibrox & Cessnock in June that will not satisfy me as I will want to know what the level of discussion was, how man folk were there, what was the evidence Dornan presented etc. In all of that, from a political perspective GCC have to prove they are acting impeccably and not just following a technical process which has potential been hijacked or abused. Once trust has gone it’s gone. 

 

 

[compo 6,147]

All this Atken thing is a smokescreen to take the heat off , of her jangling of an equal pay claim going back a number of years the council have lost ,the money was there to pay the workers but seems to have been lost or spent since the present lot took control of the council .

I have seen an email from the solicitor handling most of the claims in it he tells of a meeting she wanted to discuss a settlement but he had to agree to it being secret witch is crazy then he would be going against the people who will be paying him the claimants the woman is out of her depth the Rangers stuffs a convenient distraction. 

[Bill 13,717]

22 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Ok, I'll bite. So can you be a Rangers supporter and a Roman Catholic, or a Muslim? Are those things a "contradiction that's difficult to resolve"? Does that require "reinventing Rangers"? We're all Proddies Bill, a bit of July marching, some sneaky FTP when no one's listening, eh? 

 

What about if you're not British, say you're Irish or Turkish or German? Or are those things not aligned either. Are they a big contradiction too? Do they require some more reinvention? Is dB living his contradiction then? I mean c'mon, we're the quintessentially British club after all, are we not? 

 

One thing any organisation that's 146 years old has had to do is reinvent itself and move with the times. If it doesn't it'll die Bill, nothing surer. 

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,483]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Thanks for biting. Before I answer your question, can you help me out ... have any of the organisations or nationalities you mention been guilty of the same antagonism against Rangers and its fans as the SNP. I'm not aware they have and have no issue with any of them but since you choose to name them here, in the context of this topic, I suspect you have some knowledge I don't. Once again thanks for biting.

Can you provide evidence of the SNP (the party, not individuals) showing antogonism towards Rangers FC?