VanguardBears are to join protests against Glasgow City Council

[Bluedell 5,329]

44 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

A scum tabloid exposing a scum politician unbelievable

The original information wasn't from the Sun so I'm not sure the relevance of the tabloid who later reported it.

 

...other than as a deflection tactic.

[ian1964 10,372]

 

[ian1964 10,372]

 

[JohnMc 2,463]

23 hours ago, Bluedell said:

It's a joke when a political party who have proven to be anti-Rangers tries to use attending a Rangers game in a negative context? Sorry, but I don't find any humour in it and it's just another attempt by the SNP to paint Rangers as bad.

 

Edit - it may have been funny if they said something like "Look at McAveety. Thought he was a Celtic fan. Haha." However they are talking of using it against him which is at best sinister and indicative of a larger agenda at play. I honestly fail to see anything humorous in this.

I said it was meant as a joke, I didn't say it was funny. Anyone who thinks Frank McAveety could ever be portrayed as being pro-Rangers has clearly never met him. 

 

Look, politics is a blood sport. They almost always play the man not the ball, particularly at local level. Do we really feel the politicians who've spoken out against Aitken on this are doing it through altruism or because they think it might damage her and her party and gain them some support? I know what I think. I also think if the shoe was on the other foot they'd happily say the opposite. 

 

The fact that our politics seem to be fracturing along 'identity' lines depresses me. Having lived in Northern Ireland I can say that type of politics is not healthy or conducive to getting good public services or indeed good politicians. It's my opinion based on my experiences. Seeing Scotland gradually head down that road too exasperates me. I refuse to join in, I won't cheerlead any particular party simply because I'm a 'bluenose' or a 'Prod' or whatever label I'm supposed to be. Susan Aitken saying she intends to impose restrictions on Orange parades just days after the spitting incident is the least surprising thing I've read on here. I'm disappointed that Rangers remain political kryptonite despite the seismic changes in our political landscape in the last decade. But I'm not surprised and I long ago gave up hope I can influence any change on that.  

 

I've concerns over some of the decisions being taken by Glasgow council, this isn't one of them. 

[buster. 4,808]

7 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

I said it was meant as a joke, I didn't say it was funny. Anyone who thinks Frank McAveety could ever be portrayed as being pro-Rangers has clearly never met him. 

 

Look, politics is a blood sport. They almost always play the man not the ball, particularly at local level. Do we really feel the politicians who've spoken out against Aitken on this are doing it through altruism or because they think it might damage her and her party and gain them some support? I know what I think. I also think if the shoe was on the other foot they'd happily say the opposite. 

 

The fact that our politics seem to be fracturing along 'identity' lines depresses me. Having lived in Northern Ireland I can say that type of politics is not healthy or conducive to getting good public services or indeed good politicians. It's my opinion based on my experiences. Seeing Scotland gradually head down that road too exasperates me. I refuse to join in, I won't cheerlead any particular party simply because I'm a 'bluenose' or a 'Prod' or whatever label I'm supposed to be. Susan Aitken saying she intends to impose restrictions on Orange parades just days after the spitting incident is the least surprising thing I've read on here. I'm disappointed that Rangers remain political kryptonite despite the seismic changes in our political landscape in the last decade. But I'm not surprised and I long ago gave up hope I can influence any change on that.  

 

I've concerns over some of the decisions being taken by Glasgow council, this isn't one of them. 

At a general but connected tangent...

At a football club level, when Paul Murray used the term "building bridges" he was roundly lambasted and ridiculed from what I could see of the online Rangers support. I said at the time (2015 IIRC) that broadly and looking to the medium to long term, he was right. However difficult to stomach for some, we should have set about working on those divides that were surmountable.

 

The confrontational approach on so many different levels won't have a happy ending.

 

 

 

[D'Artagnan 173]

Its not hard to synchronise this group's hatred of our wider "culture" ie that we tend to be unionist, Protestant loyalist (to varying degrees)  with our football club and the debacle of the fanzone, along with Dornan's erroneous accusations against Club1872 is evidence of this.

 

The very fact an MP attending Ibrox, they see as an opportunity to smear him, is a clear signpost as to the depth of hatred they have for our club.

[Bill 13,717]

Yet there are Rangers fans who go out of their way to deny any orchestrated attacks on our club and supporters. It’s long been my view that there is an inevitable incompatibility between supporting Rangers as well as the SNP. That this is denied at every turn is no more than you’d expect from people with split loyalties. Trying to face two directions at the same time requires a certain kind of face.

Edited May 1, 2019 by Bill

[buster. 4,808]

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yet there are Rangers fans who go out of their way to deny any orchestrated attacks on our club and supporters. It’s long been my view that there is an inevitable incompatibility between supporting Rangers as well as the SNP. That this is denied at every turn is no more than you’d expect from people with split loyalties. Trying to face two directions at the same time requires a certain kind of face.

The confrontational approach on so many different levels won't have a happy ending.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

That has very much included the significant and damaging confrontation points within our support over the past decade and more.

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

I said it was meant as a joke, I didn't say it was funny. Anyone who thinks Frank McAveety could ever be portrayed as being pro-Rangers has clearly never met him. 

It's just all part of the demonisation of Rangers.

 

Would the same "joke" have been made about a Rangers fan attending Parkhead? Absolutely not, because the SNP don't see anything wrong with that. They are encouraging the view that attending Ibrox has negative connotations.

 

It's more to do with having any positive involvement with Rangers as being something bad, than a Celtic fan watching a game with their rivals.

 

You can say that you refuse to join in, which just gives the anti-Rangers SNP further free reign to refuse us a fanzone, build ugly housing around the environs etc, but to dismiss it as a joke is giving encouragement to the enemies of our club.

 

 

[D'Artagnan 173]

On 30/04/2019 at 08:53, JohnMc said:

I've no inside knowledge but the McAveety post is clearly a joke. McAveety is a massive Celtic fan and this isn't any secret, I suspect the post is meant to be funny. 

 

As for the first post, is anyone really surprised that councillors find Orange parades at best an inconvenience and at worst an embarrassment? That was posted 4 days after the priest was spat on. The media were all over the story and there was genuine revulsion from people like me. It doesn't surprise me that the head of Glasgow council was on a war footing about it. 

It wouldnt surprise me John if this had been "leaked" deliberately.  A cynical attempt to woo voters of a particular mindset - a hatred of all things Rangers