ian1964 10,579 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 "Itâ??s been interesting watching the reporting of two pre-season friendlies involving Rangers and Celtic in the past few days. Both games took place in English cities, both involved large travelling supports and both generated comment North and South of the border. However, there appears to have been something of a media blackout in Scotland when it comes to some disgraceful behaviour from a large element of the Celtic travelling support. Even more bizarre has been the wish to find negatives in a performance from the Rangers fans which has seen nothing but the highest praise in England. Are the Scottish press really doing Celtic a favour by continuing to suppress negative coverage of a large section of their fan base which is now brazenly anti British, pro IRA and apparently out of control? And why can they not bring themselves to give credit where it is due to our magnificent travelling support?" http://therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/274-a-tale-of-two-cities 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,387 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) read this earlier on RM. A couple of questions need asked in my opinion 1) given that a sizeable section of the support of one of its member clubs seems to be actively showing support for banned terrorist organisations shouldn't the SFA be getting involved ? 2)is there any political will either at holyrood or westminster to tackle this problem club given that a section of its support are in effect blatantly breaking the law by showing its continued support for banned terrorist organisations? Edited July 25, 2013 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 5,941 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 read this earlier on RM. A couple of questions need asked in my opinion 1) given that a sizeable section of the support of one of its member clubs seems to be actively showing support for banned terrorist organisations shouldn't the SFA be getting involved ? 2)is there any political will either at holyrood or westminster to tackle this problem club given that a section of its support are in effect blatantly breaking the law by showing its continued support for banned terrorist organisations? Reasonable questions. I am not being glib below, just answering honestly. 1. Peter tells Regan when/what/where to get involved. 2. There is no political appetite to deal with ra Sellik. Contrast with disquiet among ra hooped hordes over Remembrance events at Ibrox. Jim Murphy MP is shadow Secretary of State for Defence(he is also a big Yahoo). He contacted the GOC Scotland officially and demanded his intervention. He complied and the story was presented as Army top brass disquiet. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,387 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Reasonable questions. I am not being glib below, just answering honestly. 1. Peter tells Regan when/what/where to get involved. 2. There is no political appetite to deal with ra Sellik. Contrast with disquiet among ra hooped hordes over Remembrance events at Ibrox. Jim Murphy MP is shadow Secretary of State for Defence(he is also a big Yahoo). He contacted the GOC Scotland officially and demanded his intervention. He complied and the story was presented as Army top brass disquiet. Murphy isn't in the government at present. Surely it's for the actual governments at either holyrood or(more likely) westminster to deal with this situation. All in all scottish politics and the SFA are both so corrupt at present it make you despair does it not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 brazenly anti British, pro IRA and apparently out of control? While few outside of a Labour Party meeting would argue about the IRA bit, if we're going to be overtly pro-British, it seems a little churlish to criticise others for being anti-British. I suppose the argument is that the anti-Britishness is expressed through the nasty stuff about dead soldiers, and is thus disgusting, but in broader terms what's sauce for the goose and all that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,387 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 While few outside of a Labour Party meeting would argue about the IRA bit, if we're going to be overtly pro-British, it seems a little churlish to criticise others for being anti-British. I suppose the argument is that the anti-Britishness is expressed through the nasty stuff about dead soldiers, and is thus disgusting, but in broader terms what's sauce for the goose and all that. Pro-british or anti-british isn't the issue here. It's breaking the law by showing blatant support for banned terrorist organisations which is the issue. I said on a post a few weeks ago imagine if the basque club Atletico Bilbao's supporters started showing their support for the basque separatist terrorists ETA at la Liga matches. Do you think the Spanish government & Spanish FA would sit back & do nothing ? doubt it somehow 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,435 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 A wee reminder ... Terrorist Act 2006, Part 1, (1, 3a) (1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences. (3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement whichâ?? (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances. Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Pro-british or anti-british isn't the issue here. It's breaking the law by showing blatant support for banned terrorist organisations which is the issue.I said on a post a few weeks ago imagine if the basque club Atletico Bilbao's supporters started showing their support for the basque separatist terrorists ETA at la Liga matches. Do you think the Spanish government & Spanish FA would sit back & do nothing ? doubt it somehow Agreed. Nevertheless the OP specifically lists being anti-British as something celtc fans should be hauled up for, which is why I mentioned it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Agreed. Nevertheless the OP specifically lists being anti-British as something celtc fans should be hauled up for, which is why I mentioned it. It's the context it's listed in which holds the real meaning though: The grouping "brazenly anti British, pro IRA and apparently out of control" isn't intended to be separated since he's talking about a section of their fans who are "brazenly" all three combined. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 What, so it's to be read as 'brazenly apparently out of control'? Sloppily written then. All this is small potatoes compared to the meat of the point, which I agree with. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.