Saturday, 26 September 2015


Last Christmas I gave you my heart, but the very next day... Naw, wait, I'll start again. Last Christmas Super Ned, Barry Ferguson, was beating the drum for poor Sooperally. It wasn't his fault, nobody in the history of the world had ever been under so much pressure, even Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane didn't know he was born when compared to the burdens of Sooper. The board had let him down, the players had let him down and probably even his hydrangeas were refusing to grow; but no fingers, green or otherwise, should be pointed at Sooperally.

Fast-forward ten months and Barry has no sympathy whatever for Ian Baraclough. Apparently the buck stops with the manager and nobody else is to blame, whether players, chairmen or hydrangeas. That's the thing when it comes to The Peeppul; the pretence that their old club never cheated and that it never died has led them to be extremely selective when it comes to the past. Barry indulges in some more selectiveness when he, again, tries to convince everybody that he had nothing to do with driving Paul Le Guen out of Rangers. Apparently, it was all to do with the fact that Le Guen "just didn’t understand what Rangers is all about". You can just imagine Barry tapping the side of his nose with his forefinger while saying that. He goes on to say that "he couldn’t adapt to life at a club where winning every week is the be-all-and-end-all." So are we meant to believe that Le Guen was sending his team out to get beaten on a weekly basis? The probable scenario is that Le Guen wasn't welcome at those wee meetings doon the Ludge, where referees were given their instructions about Rangers matches. Instead, Le Guen insanely expected Rangers players to actually go out and win on their own merits! As Barry says, "He just didn’t get it."

And it's not just Super Ned that plays tricks with his own memory; the agnivores are at it as well. Over the space of three days in the past week they revealed details about Sevco that were totally at odds with what they were saying the day before. On Day 1 they reported that Sevco denied reports that Chateau Charlie had approached them to pay for his legal expenses. Day 2 and the story now is that Sevco did receive an approach from Charlie but had chased him as he was just at it. And, on the Third Day, the story rose again. This time we learned that Charlie was indeed entitled to have his expenses paid, via one of those famous 'onerous contracts' and was going to take Sevco to court to get his way.

Not once did any of these reports mention the phrases 'contrary to previous reports' or 'we have discovered'; they all just pretended that the story from the day before never happened! Christ, even George Orwell's Ministry of Truth had the good grace to wait a while before doing that and had the sense to go back into the records and change the old story to match the new one! So what we have is the media regurgitating the crumbs fed to them by Jabba and then they don't even notice that the story has changed completely in the space of two days. Still, I suppose we can't expect any different, especially when it comes to Jabba's organ of choice, the Daily Record.

Remember the old days when the Daily Record used to wear the banner, 'Scotland's Champion'? It looks like they're desperately trying to regain that spurious claim after their craven display during the Referendum and the General Election. Today they have a pile of shite about things you need to do to be a Scotsman; it's full of crap like letting your tackle swing free under your kilt, drink Irn Bru and eat deep-fried Mars bars. Aye, there's nothing like a bit of stereotyping, eh? If anything, this particular article is actually offensive and, thirty years ago, the DR would have been the first to complain if an English paper had published this pish. "Who doesn’t want to be Scottish?" they ask. Er...all the ones that supported 'Better Together' in the Referendum.

Even more pathetic was their outrage the other day. There was apparently another one of those silly polls, choosing the 50 Greatest Britons. The Record moaned about the fact that Sean Connery, among others, was't on the list. Unfortunately, the Record being the Record, they managed to make a complete arse of themselves in the process. For example, at Number 12 on the list was Queen Elizabeth I, who was described thusly:

"The Virgin Queen who oversaw Britain defeat the Spanish Armada."

Britain? Er...Good Queen Bess, Gloriana, whatever you want to call her, was the Queen of ENGLAND. Britain didn't enter into it. Scotland had nothing whatsoever to do with the Armada or any arguments with Spain. Granted, nobody in Scotland at the time would be particularly friendly toward Catholic Spain but the fact is that relations with England were pretty strained as well, mainly due to John Knox's ill-conceived book railing against female rulers. Mind you, the mistake in this instance might not be the Record's, but they should have been pointing that out instead of bleating about Sean Connery. It's taking 'Better Together' a bit too far!

Also missed out on, or blatantly ignored, was the description of Sir Walter Raleigh, who was at Number 43:

"Politician, spy, and one of our greatest explorers, who gave us tobacco and potatoes. Executed for his involvement in a plot against the King James I."

One of OUR greatest explorers? Now, either that's a throwback to the days when the Record used to try to claim that everyone that had ever achieved anything was Scottish, or it's letting us know that all of us on this island have always been British rather than different nationalities. Who doesn't want to be Scottish, eh?

Meanwhile, on the bread front, we managed the other day to get our hands on a thick-sliced Warburton loaf with the green wrapper. Maybe the honeymoon period has worn off and The Peeppul are no longer buying the blue and orange-wrapped loaves in bulk anymore. Oh, and we also bought new biscuits: orange penguins. I wonder if they got that idea from visiting Glasgow in July?

Finally, the reactions on many news forums to the deaths in and near Mecca have been nothing short of disgusting. The assumption behind most of the comments is that all Muslims are terrorists, filled with hatred of the Western World and everyone in it. This inductive reasoning can easily be applied to other groups, with results that the commenters on these websites wouldn't like. There are extreme right-wing Christian groups in America that see nothing wrong in killing homosexuals, black people or Jews. Surely this means that all Christians are murderous, racist homophobes? It's worth remembering that forty years ago the same type of commenter would be rejoicing in the deaths of Roman Catholics, since Catholics were all supporters of 'terrorism'. Those folk then were wrong and their counterparts nowadays are wrong as well.

Remember to vote for Bampots Utd as Best Established Football Blog:

The Daily Record wins the Caption Competition

Mark Warburton doesn't think there's much between his side and Celtic

No comments:

Post a Comment