D'Artagnan

Im not getting at anything - Its an honest answer - Ive been busy elsewhere and furthermore up till today I have not posted in that thread. So "no need" right back at you.

There is little point referring the matter Andy - what difference will that make other than some will agree/disagree with our respective points. Lets move the debate on to the issues I have raised.

I think our British identity is reflected in our songs and symbolism - many of our songs are popular British anthems and the flag you see most commonly on display at Ibrox is the Union Flag. Its probably why guys like Jeff Randall referred to us as - "the quintissential British club" I dont think I ever alluded to us being any more ( or less for that matter) British than Hartlepool or Plymouth Argyle .

I think you will find AMMS that I have not replied to any of the points raised in the latter part of that thread - so your non response is not exclusive - I have been busy elsewhere. as well as other forums I also have family committments. I will give it a look and respond in due course.

I have trouble with this Andy – I don’t think I suggested in the original article that there was an exclusivity – though if I was pushed I would suggest they were exclusive to our club. Prof Graham Walker alludes to Rangers becoming the platform for the Protestant people of the West of Scotland - in response to their desire to have a club which similarly reflected their identity and culture in the way Celtic did for the Irish Catholic in Scotland. That is at odds with what observers have said. When Jeff Randall remarked that Rangers were “The quintessential British club” – was that unattractive ? Furthermore.. Do you honestly believe this an expression of support for imperialism ? It is not rather that this song is one of our country’s popular anthems ? And thus is just a celebration of our Britishness – much like it is cherished at the Last Night of the Proms ? And where do we draw the line with our celebration of Britishness. Should we stop forthwith our behind closed doors toast to the Monarch from the Loving Cup. Or remove Her Majesty’s portrait from the Ibrox dressing room ? Should we no longer host a Tribute Day to Our Armed Forces or does that not come under the heading of celebrating our British identity ? When the Union Flag with the Lee Rigby tribute thereon was passed around the ground at Sheffield and fans of both clubs shared the moment was that “unattractive” ? Apparently the late soldier’s family did not think so – they went out of their way to thank the Rangers support. The problem with that Andy is it not extinct nor in need of resurrection. It is alive and well within a section of the Rangers support. It expresses itself in the form of song repertoire and symbolism such as flags. Furthermore whilst not all are Protestant, Unionist, etc they appear to sympathise enough with the beliefs that they are happy also to join in such singing – I believe Frankie alluded to this in the other thread. You may not like – you may disagree with it – but its there.

Firstly I didnt expect anyone to write a critique of my original post - the forum exists for discussion relative to opening posts. Normally on forums when an opening posts is promulgated and there is a bone of contention - subsequent posts seek clarification of points which are unclear to readers. You state there cannot be any other interpretation of what I have written - well clearly there is and I have given you it. The option existed for you Andy to clarify anything you were unclear about, even disagreed with as per normal forum behaviour in responses to posts - instead you chose to write your own piece, which we have not progressed to discussing yet. I dont see the point of taking the article down - to me that would be a form of censorship - and you are perfectly entitled to your own right of expression, every bit as much as I am. I would have preferred however if you had used my quotations verbatim from the original and then espoused your thoughts rather than take them out of their original context and jumbled them up with your own inference in the middle. To me that is misrepresenting the original article. You may not disagree - but there we are. Let me give you an example of what Im talking about. "I'm happy to say OK, I got the gist wrong" , I acted out of anger , "How about withdrawing the whole shebang?" With the wrong inference in the middle is that a true reflection of what you said ?

Thank you for taking the time to put this together RPB. You are absolutely correct with regard to what has been done - unfortunately its the interpretation and inference which is erroneous. The inference in particular with two quotes from the original - taken out of their context - give an impression of something being said which was not. Perhaps I should clarify and you will perhaps understand where I am coming from I am not talking about the club - I am talking about the beliefs of those who follow. For those who profess to be Protestants their beliefs are based around spiritual laws which do not change - irrespective of societal shifts or attitude changes. Hence why we see so many schisms between the Church and politics and also within churches themselves as some surrender fundamental beliefs to play catch up with society's attitudes. Those who follow the club and profess such a belief will not adapt to those societal changes, they will remain true to that which they believe in, as I said these are spiritual laws and are treated accordingly. Many will not agree, perhaps not even understand - but thats part of the entailment of accepting the Protestant faith. (any other faiths for that matter based around spiritual laws) What I have written is that for them the club till represents their culture and identity - hence why they sing the songs they do, and sing them with particular gusto. Their beliefs are what has not changed according to society - not Rangers.

Times change', the article notes, but Rangers must stay the same, 'no matter how society moves on to other things' I have not said the above anywhere in the original article. If you think otherwise please show me. Andy has taken parts of what I have said, repositioned them from their original context, placing an inference of his own between them. Its really that simple.

You really are not getting this Andy are you ? I get you disagree with what Ive written. No problem you know I like debate. I get that the characteristics and identity I have espoused dont sit comfortably with you. No problem - this club is a broad church - each to their own. I even get that you have mis-interpreted some of the things I have alluded to in the original article. No problem - Im happy to discuss them What you clearly dont get is that you have misquoted me in my original article. Its all there in black and white - hence why Frankie had to put the "disclaimer" on your published article.

I will come to that in a moment - and explain where you have mis-interpreted that part. But if you are going to write a critique of my articles, out of courtesy, I would appreciate, if you are going to quote me - you do so verbatim rather than suggest to readers by use of quotation marks, that I have said something which I have not.

In that case the misrepresentation continues. Firstly we had a set of quotations - the first part is accurate and quoted verbatim - the second part (not in quotes) is inference on your part - the third part again in quote - I never even said in the original article - that is purely poetic licence on your part Andy. If that is not erroneous - then I dont know what is.

Its more than satisfactory Frankie. Its a great pity that the riposte contains inaccuracies from the original, as it is an excellent article otherwise with a differing viewpoint to my own.

The quotation marks actually refer to my original comments in the first part - the part in the middle appears to be an inference - with the latter part, again in quotes, relates to words I never actually said. Very misleading for those who have not read the original. My considerable disappointment is that it is suggesting something which I never said in the original article.

I dont think your offer to edit is practical Frankie given the nature of the article. Erroneous interpretation of what I had written would have been understandable - however the offending sentence is written as a quotation, as you can see on not just one but two occasions.

As a piece of writing Andy I enjoyed it immensely. As a critique of my original article however - you have missed some critical points and, of particular disappointment on a personal level - you have misrepresented some of the original. Permit me to give you an example.. And again... However what I actually wrote was... Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club. This is not about heritage of the club Andy - its about personal beliefs. Those personal beliefs do not change irrespective of societal shifts. I have never, in this article nor any other for that matter suggested as per your assertion - "Rangers must stay the same" The fact that earlier this month a Southern Irish Roman Catholic captained our club - illustrates the complete folly of such a belief. This is fundamental to the whole discussion and I think it only fair to allow you to respond before we venture further.

Prof Walker was talking about the 1920's CB

Im not so sure about that RPB. I remember reading one of Prof Graham Walker's book /essays - he says there was a significant increase in British symbolism amongst the Rangers support post Word War 1.

Barcelona's unique Catalonian identity doesnt appear to do them any harm

I've often been referred to a â??dinosaurâ? - mostly by the new breed of Rangers fans (though age does not seem to be a determination in this equation) who see our Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist and British identity as something... not exactly to be ashamed of.... but quite clearly something they would prefer not to be there. I of course would disagree, but then again as a Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist, British Rangers supporter I would wouldn't I ? Furthermore I appreciate there are those who follow our club, and may I add, are as passionate as I am about her, yet who are not the slightest bit interested in being a Protestant, a Unionist etc. etc. Times change and so do attitudes and beliefs, often for the better. But for several generations, including my own, Rangers were not just a football club. They represented who we were, what we stood for and the things which we believed in. And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things. No Rangers were not founded for overtly religious reasons, nor were they a bastion of Unionism, Presbyterianism or anything else for that matter, it was simply 4 boys with dream to form a football club for football reasons. But it would be foolhardy and erroneous to suggest that the characteristics and identity alluded to in the opening paragraph did not evolve over time and I would contend, if one was to examine our song repertoire,symbolism and flags, is still very prevalent today. We are not just supporting a football club, but a set of beliefs, of standards, when we sing we do so with a passion which goes beyond sport, into the realms of a celebration of identity and culture. They are our club and we are their people. I appreciate all do not feel this way, but those who do will know exactly what I refer to. On Wednesday 24th July, 2013, that celebration of a football club intertwined with the beliefs of its people erupted in spectacular fashion in Sheffield. The people of Sheffield heard what we are, saw what we believed in, and the things we considered important, those worth celebrating, defending and, perhaps most importantly, in the case of Lee Rigby, were most worthy of our utmost respect. They watched, they tweeted and they stood in awe and admiration at the Rangers support. Remarkable how an audience how are not motivated by a hatred of the things many of us cherish, can be so complimentary rather than derogatory. It makes one wonder where the problem really lies ? Rangers are not a platform for these other views and never should be. Nor should our expression of our Protestantism, our Unionism, our Loyalism or our British identity ever be done in a manner which brings shame upon our club or for that matter that which we seek to celebrate. There is a delicate balance at work weaving it all together, and I would remind those of similar beliefs to my own, there are people out there who are determined to destroy that fine balance and eradicate it forever. The power and passion on display at Sheffield is the reason why. They are frightened of it. Its the same power and passion which rescued a football club against the odds , which broke world records last season and filled stadium after stadium. To the consternation of many, that power and passion is on the march once again, and it does not intend to stop. As the many Owls fans testified post match â?? no other set of visiting supporters has ever come close to matching that power and passion. Let us celebrate our club's identity and culture with responsibility, and in such a way which makes us as many new friends as we did in Sheffield.

Even more interesting Tom when you consider his comments following the BBC ban.

Thats it sorted out in the original DB - thanks for pointing that out.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hugh-keevins-ally-mccoist-takes-1267457 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/probe-into-rangers-title-wins-to-be-carried-1167116 Will try again DB - they seem to be working everywhere else.

It must be great being a journalist rather than a blogger, the former seem to have a considerable degree of latitude when it comes to “the truth”, bloggers on the other hand live or die on the accuracy of their most recent efforts. Hugh Keevins latest piece in the Daily Record is a master-class in the art of the curve ball. “Apparently” ? It should come of course as no surprise to a support who Hugh decided to compare to Nazis with his now infamous “Nuremberg Rally comment” A comment which duly earned him a 6 month suspension from Radio Clyde, but not from the Ibrox. In fact it seems Hugh would have to embark on genocide to earn a ban from Ibrox. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hugh-keevins-ally-mccoist-takes-1267457 Some would argue, that comparing a group of football supporters, to one of the most vilest regimes ever to have inhabited this earth, is a feat of such dehumanisation that it ranks right up there with genocide. For when it comes to Rangers, Hugh seems to think that this dehumanised group are not entitled to the right of a trial and hearing. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/probe-into-rangers-title-wins-to-be-carried-1167116 I doubt I’m the only one angered by Keevin's Judge Dread impersonation. In fact, I know I’m not as it features and is highlighted in the excellent “Follow We Will” publication. Furthermore, some of Keevin's recent rants appear to have caused angst within Ibrox. Keevins appears to be fascinated with our signing of Jon Daly given the attention devoted to it it by Mr Keevins. Actually I beg to differ Mr Keevins – I think there is plenty to see. I see a man whose treatment of our club and it's support has been deplorable. You have misrepresented the facts, you have attempted to set the agenda of our guilt and you have described our support in manner which is quite frankly unforgivable. Allow me to adorn that Judge Dread outfit for a moment and simply say that your continued presence and access to Ibrox is a considerable insult to all who support Rangers.

Im sure we would all extend our support and thoughts to Chris at this difficult time.

And he got Rangers Rab by virtue of our previous owner reneging on his promises to only sell the club to someone who would take us forward, That, im my opinion, and Whytes subsequent behaviour - qualifies as self inflicted,