NON-STRIP CLUB

So the titles weren't stripped, even though they were found guilty; did anybody honestly think they would be? If it had been any other team it would have happened. Nimmo Smith should be ashamed of himself for caving in to the knuckle draggers. A fine imposed on Oldco? What is the point of that? Another shameful chapter in Scottish football history.

Meanwhile Mark Hateley had plenty to say about the subject in this morning's Daily Record. He feared for the game if the verdict went against Rangers. Why? Apparently the whole game will end up divided. Maybe he didn't notice but it is already divided; Green and his supporters against everybody else, including the English FA, UEFA, and even FIFA. Really what he means is that this is Rangers we're talking about and nobody should even dare to tackle them over anything.

'The last couple of years have seen Rangers vandalised and pillaged by all and sundry..' he says. Really? By whom? He also enters Leggoland by suggesting that there is a conspiracy to end the existence of Rangers. Like every other apologist for Rangers he is out to blame everybody else for what happened. No blame whatsoever is to be attached to Rangers. In fact, the newsagent, the face-painting wummin and everybody else that was swindled should be sending their claims in to Peter Lawell; after all, he caused everything that happened!

Let's take a look at what really occurred. Rangers spent millions trying desperately to emulate the achievement of Celtic in Europe. Murray said he wanted to 'wipe Glasgow Celtic off the face of the Earth.' All the other teams struggled financially to keep up and he nearly got his wish in 1994. It turned out, however, that Murray was spending money that wasn't his and the bank wanted their money back. He also used the dodgy EBTs to give side payments to players to give the team an extra advantage. 

All these chickens finally came home to roost and Murray found himself in dire straits. HMRC wanted their money, so did Lloyds TSB and nobody wanted to buy the club with all this debt hanging over it. Enter one Craig Whyte, the Motherwell billionaire, who was going to fix everything. Unfortunately, the man was a crook and the aministrators were called in. This is where things got really interesting.

The administrators, Duff and Phelps, were duty-bound to get the best return for the creditors but, instead seemed to see their job as doing what was best for Rangers. Still nobody wanted to buy until Green turned up with his idea for a CVA, offering a derisory 7p in the pound. Not surprisingly this was rejected and the liquidators were called in. True to what they had been doing, and against what they were supposed to be doing, Duff and Phelps let Green have the assets for £5m. This was potentially illegal, since the assets should have been sold to the highest bidder by the liquidators, but, this being Rangers, nobody batted an eyelid.

With breathtaking temerity, Green then claimed to have bought Rangers and did not ask for, but demanded entry to the SPL. The SPL hierarchy then passed the buck to the clubs, whose supporters were adamant that justice should be done and that the new club should not get automatic entry into the top flight. Back-door deals were then attempted to get Rangers into Division 1 but the SFL clubs also acted out of justice and allowed Rangers into Division 3. Legally Rangers should have been out of the leagues altogether but, again, this is Rangers we're talking about.

New Rangers was not registered with the SFA so, without precedent, the SFA issued Green with a temporary membership so his team could play in Division 3.

Green then claimed that his New Rangers was the same club and all the jiggery-pokery about 'holding companies' started up. Our media and footballing authorities went along with this lie and it was as if nothing had happened at all!

So the 'Big Conspiracy' was not to put Rangers down but to keep Rangers in the League to the detriment of other teams that had been working patiently to get in, to let Green pretend that he had bought the club and to let Green peddle the lie that his club was the same as the old club. Even the strip, with its kid-on stars, was allowed to remain.

And so we come to the First Tier Tribunal. Traynor and others let us know, in no uncertain terms, that this was only the first stage. It would mean nothing if Rangers were found guilty and appeals would be forthcoming. When the Tribunal decided largely, but not completely, on the side of Rangers, all these same commentators spoke of 'vindication' and declared that Rangers had been cleared of all wrongdoing. HMRC certainly don't see it that way!

Which leads nicely to the reason for Hateley's ill-informed rant; the investigation into Rangers' use of side contracts. Incredibly the tribunal found Rangers guilty but deemed that a meaningless fine was appropriate. Nimmo Smith declared that Rangers had fielded players that were ineligible but he could not see how this could be interpreted as them gaining an advantage! As Stuart Cosgrove pointed out on Reporting Scotland, what about all the teams over the years that were kicked out of competitions because of even one ineligible player? Rangers broke the rules, cheated effectively, but, again, this is Rangers we're talking about and they can't be treated like all the other teams. Possibly Nimmo Smith was influenced by his postman, who was not looking forward to a glut of 'Rangers Mail.'

So, really, it's difficult to see what Hateley is moaning about. Our footballing authorities have bent over backwards to accomodate Green's New Rangers and have again bent the rules in Old Rangers' favour. What more do these peeppil want?

Hateley also points to the empty seats at Celtic Park as symptomatic of the malaise in Scottish football; ie if Rangers had been allowed into the SPL this wouldn't be happening! Loony Leggat is always banging on about how The Sun has overtaken the Daily Record as Scotland's best-selling newspaper. He, of course, puts this down to some Papist conspiracy at the Record. The truth, of course, is more prosaic. Ask anyone why they now buy The Sun instead of the Daily Record and, apart from some right-wing nutters, the answer will be the same: it's cheaper! It's simple economics. The big problem facing football is that the tickets are too dear; nothing more.

Speaking of The Sun, this rag continues it's 'Anti-Catholic Week' with Bill Leckie banging on about the use of the word 'inappropriate.' Of course, he has to bring Cardinal O'Brien into it again, marvelling at how O'Brien's 'crimes' can be deemed 'inappropriate.' Beneath a picture of O'Brien, with others, in a criminal line-up, he lumps the Cardinal in with rapists and 'knife-weilding maniacs.' With all his disbelief at the use of the word 'inappropriate' he decides to miss one out: bigoted and racist singing being branded 'inappropriate.' I wonder why that would be?

A few people have posted comments asking why a sports reporter is writing about Cardinal O'Brien. The answer is obvious: it's his penance for daring to question Green and Rangers a couple of weeks ago. He can't take back what he said so he is looking for a way to suck up to the Blue Horde. Appealing to the lowest elements has always been a policy of The Sun and Leckie is continuing the trend. His anti-Catholic tirades are nothing short of disgusting. Or is that inappropriate?

CROCODILE TEARS

The Sun continues its Orange Week by showing a picture of Cardinal O'Brien today. "He looks as if he has the weight of the world on his shoulders," said 'an onlooker.' An onlooker, for God's sake! (Pardon the pun!) They also call him the 'axed' Cardinal, when the whole world and his dog knows that he resigned. The whole piece does its best to condemn him.

His house is in 'posh Morningside, Edinburgh.' Another reason to hate him; he lives in a big house in one of the dearest parts of Edinburgh. Disgraceful, isn't it? Especially since all the Church of Scotland officials live in council flats in Muirhouse!

'The cardinal initially tendered his resignation as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh last November — citing his age and ill-health.'

He did not actually cite anything of the sort. Cardinals are required to resign at the age of 75. O'Brien's 75th birthday is coming up so he was sending in his resignation in plenty of time.  The way The Sun puts it, it looks as if he was resigning for other reasons and using his age as an excuse. 

The piece finishes with a reminder of yesterday's 'shocker': 

'Yesterday, The Scottish Sun told how the archbishop boasted of being friends with sex beast Jimmy Savile for “many years”.'

And when did he boast of this? I was in Glencoe before Savile died and there were quite a few folk in the hotel that boasted of their friendship with Savile. Thatcher, and other politicians, were photographed with him, as were numerous doctors and health officials. Should we be looking into the sexual proclivities of all these people? I suppose it depends if they are Catholics or not!

Needless to say, the Rangers supporters have been having a field day. What the hell it has to do with football I've no idea but their hatred has been around a long time so maybe we can't blame them. They are on blogs, salivating with pleasure, saying how they've known for years about how corrupt the Catholic Church is. Strangely, Celtic is brought into this. Many of them laugh at how Celtic's world is crumbling around them! Maybe they don't realise but even if the Vatican were to disappear into the bowels of the Earth and everyone that was RC stopped following the religion, Celtic would still be there! Strange people.

As I have already said on here, paedophiles should be locked up and maybe O'Brien is guilty of whatever he has been accused of. The problem I have is twofold: condemnation seems to be reserved for paedophiles that are Catholics and the sheer joy of some people, while they try to profess sorrow for the children involved, is vomit-inducing to say the least.

Even stranger is Bill McMurdo's idea that Catholics should leave the church en masse and head over to Protestantism! Others on his blog agree. But why would they? Many people that call themselves Protestants have no idea what the Reformation was about. They seem to think it was a reaction to corruption in the Renaissance Church, when it was actually nothing of the sort. 

The Reformation came about due to fundamental differences of opinion about salvation: Luther's 'Justification by Faith.' Of course, once things got started other heads poked above the parapet to take further the ideas of Luther; notable among these was Zwingli. Of course, they all fell out with one another!

Historians speak of a 'Second Reformation' in the latter half of the Sixteenth Century. This is when new Reformers, like Calvin, came to the fore. The Church of Scotland follows a strict Calvinist doctrine. Part of this doctrine is that God is so perfect that he can never change his mind. That means that he made his mind up about who would be saved and who would be condemned before he even made anybody! These people that are going to be saved are called, 'The Elect' and Calvin put their number at 4800! That means that the vast majority of us are hell-bound no matter how good we are. It also means, conversely, that The Elect will go to Heaven no matter how bad they have been! Of course, nobody knows who constitutes The Elect and it might be that some of those paedophile priests will be up in Heaven laughing at the rest of us in our eternal torment!

Such an idea suggests that God is not good at all, but a capricious and arbitrary being, if not downright evil. Can a God be good if he makes people just to condemn them to everlasting torment through no fault of their own?

Anyway, sorry for the theology lecture. My point is that Catholicism as a religion is fundamentally different in its soteriology than the Protestant Churches. No matter how corrupt members, or even leaders, of that church might be, it does not diminish the truth of the church's doctrine for its followers. And there have been plenty of corrupt leaders: Pope Alexander VI and Julius II to name but two. But the church goes on.

Hopefully the Sun will stop pandering to this base, bigoted element and report the story impartially; but I doubt it. Equally, maybe the Rangers support could stop revelling in stories of child abuse; but, again, I doubt it.

Some good news for Sooperally, anyway. He will be taking part in a Question Of Sport 1000th edition special on March 4th. You never know, he might even win a trophy!

P.S.  Sorry about the funny look of this page. I can't understand it and I can't fix it!

IT'S BIGOT WEEK IN THE SUN!

As something of an apology to its Scottish readers for daring to report on the singing at Berwick at the weekend, the Sun has decided to give them what they want. Among the blogs dedicated to all things Rangers many posters, while ostensibly condemning the singing, derided the press for reporting it and ESPN for highlighting it. The more lunatic posters banged on about Catholics taking over the country, while the rest thought that the singers were justified and that the media should be concentrating on the Catholic Church rather than the bigots and racists at Ibrox. The Sun has decided to accomodate them.

Certainly, the Cardinal O'Brien saga is newsworthy but the Sun has decided to go over the top. Bill Leckie, suitably contrite after his previous piece about Rangers, starts off by saying that O'Brien is innocent until proven guilty. He then proceeds to denigrate every piece of Catholic doctrine he can. Catholicism is not the only church that is anti-abortion or that thinks that homosexuality is wrong, but Leckie gives his readers exactly what they want. He has O'Brien all but hung, drawn and quartered by the end of his article.

To make things even more sensational, the Sun decides to run a story about O'Brien being friends with Jimmy Savile. Shock! Horror! The implication is obvious; O'Brien must be a paedophile! By that logic Margaret Thatcher must be a paedophile too! They also point out that the Catholic Church gave Savile a knighthood. Comments on the story are not allowed so it is impossible to remind them that the Queen gave Savile a knighthood as well!

Just to put the tin hat on things the paper also prints a story about the Magdalene laundries in Ireland. Of course, we all know about this despicable organisation and have known about it for years now. It is hardly what you would call news, so why publish it today? 

Don't get me wrong. I think a lot of what the Catholic Church is responsible for is deplorable and had a huge argument once with a hypocritical priest at the Bishop of Motherwell's office. I was told I could no longer teach in a Catholic school because I was living with my partner 'in sin.' The fact that we had a child seemed to make matters worse. I pointed out that the Bishop of Motherwell was guilty of covering up for a paedophile priest, one Des Lynagh, who was sent to be chaplain at Stirling University to get him out of the way. I was astounded at the man's hypocrisy and told him so. I have not been back to church since.

On the other hand, I can see that child abuse is not a problem in the Catholic Church alone. Organisations worldwide have been plagued with paedophiles: youth organisations and churches of all denominations. To many folk in Scotland, however, it seems that only the Catholic Church is culpable. The Sun seems determined to perpetuate this myth. 

The Sun, remember, is the paper that was 100% behind Clause 28 and gave out Michael Cashman's full address so that right-wing thugs could hassle and terrorise him in his own home! This is also the paper that perpetually demonises single mothers and would like nothing more than to see them all have their benefits cut and put into a workhouse. Suddenly, however, they are standing up for gay rights and deploring the treatment of unmarried mothers! The sheer hypocrisy is astonishing!

The only explanation of this 'Anti-Catholic Special Issue' is that the Sun has been taken aback by the response of the Rangers support and has decided to go along with their twisted bigotry. And yet, the Rangers blogs will still be full of 'peeppil' claiming that the Scottish media are against them!

Meanwhile the Sun reports that Sooperally is pleading for an end to the songs of hate and that he 'condemned' them at the weekend. Of course, he did nothing of the sort. He expressed 'disappointment' and claimed not to have heard the singing. He also tries to blame the police! 

Of course, the Sun ignores the reports in other newspapers that Ally is trying to deflect the blame as usual. He says that a list of songs that are 'not allowed' would be helpful! To anyone with more than one brain cell, it is obvious that Ally is taking the usual Rangers tack of blaming everyone else. People offended by the singing are the problem; not the ones doing the singing! The Sun mentions none of this.

Today the Scottish Sun has firmly nailed its colours to the mast. Those colours are blue and orange!

SINGING THE BLUES

Strangely the furore over the 'inappropriate' singing at Berwick at the weekend is being stoked by Rangers supporters rather than the media. Many Rangers supporters have condemned the singing, albeit still blaming the media and, strangely, the Catholic Church, for the whole thing. Practically nobody has condemned the songs per se, only being concerned that Rangers' 'enemies' are being given ammunition. 

So how did the media report these shenanigans? The Daily Record briefly mentioned it in its match report. The Sun had a separate article on Ray Stubbs, the ESPN commentator, condemning the singing and insisting on the police being called. The Herald and The Scotsman were more interested in the rugby and briefly mentioned the singing and chanting in their match reports. I haven't heard it mentioned on the TV at all. So where is this great conspiracy of Rangers being singled out for opprobrium? Apparently these songs have been belted out all season with ne'er a mention in the press. This is first time it's been mentioned and then only because Ray Stubbs brought it to everybody's attention. The way it is being told on blogs you would think that every front page in the land carried the story every Sunday and Monday!

Conversely, when some drunks were allowed into Dens Park a few weeks ago and made some trouble, it was reported as if it had been a full-scale riot involving thousands. The story was overblown so much that many now believe that there was a riot, that people were seriously injured and that huge sections of the stadium were practically destroyed! And yet, we are supposed to believe that the papers are condemning Rangers constantly while playing down any incidents involving Celtic!

Last year, while things were looking bleak for Old Rangers, Kilmarnock came to Ibrox. The singing of 'The Billy Boys' almost drowned out the TV commentator. Nothing, however, was said about it in any of our media and Mr Lunny obviously heard nothing. A short while later Mr Lunny made sure that he had his hearing aid in when attending a European match involving Celtic. He could not wait to report the singing. He inadvertantly lost his hearing aid again, however, when 'The Billy Boys' was belted out at Hampden. 

This is what the problem actually is for Rangers fans; they are now being scrutinised in the same way as everyone else and they don't like it! Any mention at all of misbehaviour by Rangers fans is seen as an 'anti-Rangers agenda.' Green and his Goebels, Big Jabba himself, reinforce this paranoia on a frequent basis. All we hear from this quarter is that everybody is out to bash Rangers, with no evidence whatsoever to corroborate this claim. 

This paranoia has been taken to the extreme by some people that see our football authorities, our media and even our government as having been taken over by 'Popish' elements. To their fevered minds every order coming out of the Vatican has but one purpose: to destroy Rangers. You think I'm exaggerating? Have a look on some of the forums. Even Bill McMurdo's blog has one or two of thes bams posting on it! According to these folk the TV and radio companies turn off the volume when Celtic fans are singing, but turn it up full blast when it's Rangers. Some even suggest that microphones are deliberately put into sections where the singing will come from. One maniac is convinced that the Green Brigade are infiltrating the Rangers support!

So what of the songs themselves; what's wrong with them? According to many Rangers supporters, nothing at all. To a lot of Celtic supporters, everything. To the world at large, however, the Rangers song book is totally unacceptable. Some Rangers supporters point to other football fans singing offensive songs. One pointed to Aberdeen fans singing about the Ibrox Disaster. I agree that such songs are sick and offensive but, really, they are directed at Rangers and only at Rangers. The songs sung by Rangers fans, however, express hatred not for other football teams but for a religion and a nation. They hate Ireland and they hate the Catholic Church. 

'But what aboot theym?' is the usual reply. Well, what about them? Yes, there is a minority, and it is a minority, who sing songs supporting the IRA at Celtic matches. Mostly, however, the big complaint from Rangers supporters is about the 'Soldier Song' and the 'Fields of Athenry.' One of these songs is a national anthem, while the other is a folk song about the Potato Famine. Hardly songs of hate, are they? 

Rangers fans, on the other hand, have songs that are filled with hatred: 'No Pope of Rome,' 'The Famine Song,' and the old favourite, 'The Billy Boys.' These are not songs against terrorists or anything; they are songs about hatred for Ireland and the Catholic Church and nothing more. And yet, they still try to support the singing of such songs! Some might tell you that the word 'Fenian' refers to Irish Republicans alone. That might have been true in the 19th Century but it hasn't been true for about a hundred years! When Billy Fullerton was running about with his Fascists there was no such thing as the Fenians anymore. We all know what Fullerton meant by 'Fenian' and we all know what the singers mean today by the term.

Even songs about Rangers have to have sectarian and racist undertones. 'Super Rangers' has to have the 'F' word yet again. The seemingly inoccuous song, 'Follow Follow' even stoops to such depths. The song celebrates following your team everywhere, even to Hell and back; only it's not Hell they mention, it's Dublin! The song 'Penny Arcade' is perceived by some as being sectarian. I personally can't see how it is but the question needs to be asked: would the Rangers supporters still sing it if it wasn't perceived as sectarian and offensive? After all, some Catholic bishop once erroneously claimed that the 'Hokey-Cokey' was lampooning the Catholic mass. Almost straight away the song could be heard from the Rangers faithful! If somebody claimed that 'Agadoo' was against Catholics I guarantee you would hear it at Ibrox the following week!

So instead of blaming the media and Catholic conspiracies it's about time the Rangers support realised that this is the Twentieth Century, not the Sixteenth! Nobody cares about what religion you are anymore. Nobody cares if you think another religion is wrong. And nobody wants to hear your bigoted opinions! We'll wait and hear what Traynor has to say about it; not a lot, I predict. Green will keep a low profile on the issue; he knows where his support lies! Ally, meanwhile, heard nothing. Maybe he should borrow Lunny's hearing aid!

Ray Stubbs...er...Wait a minute here...

 

TRAYNOR'S TITLE TIRADE

Big Jabba has got his XXXXL knickers in a twist over Lord Nimmo's investigation into Rangers' alleged double contracts. According to him it will be the worst thing to happen to Scottish football, causing a deep rift. Maybe he hasn't noticed but there is already a deep rift in Scottish football; a rift that he is doing his best to maintain. The Director of Provocation, as Bill Leckie described him, is never done telling us all how hard-done-by Rangers have been by everybody in Scottish football. Of course, he follows the Loony Leggat line that the majority in the game want to see Rangers treated 'fairly' except that they are scared of the minority that has a hold over Scottish football at the moment. We all know exactly who this 'minority' is that he speaks of and it is despicable how he is trying to cause a divide along sectarian lines.

He tells a great story about David Murray, his hero and dinner provider, co-operating fully with HMRC. Of course the First Tier Tribunal gave us the truth in this regard; Rangers did their best to delay and impede investigation and to obfuscate things as much as they could. The police even had to be sent in to seize documents, for God's sake! Still, Traynor knows who his audience is and that they will lap up every word that paints Rangers as victims, even if it is a downright lie.

Traynor also questions why it took so long for the SPL to decide to investigate Rangers. Maybe he could answer the same kind of question. Why did it take him so long to admit what we all suspected for years; that he was a dyed-in-the-wool bluenose? Maybe he thought he would lose his positions of power at the Daily Record and BBC Scotland! There is also his big 'scoop' about Craig Whyte and Ticketus. Weeks before this scandal appeared in the Daily Record we heard from various sources that Traynor was 'sitting' on a major story. Why was he sitting on it? Did he not want to be the first to break bad news about the Motherwell 'billionaire'? Was he waiting until other stories emerged? Remember, his 'scoop' didn't appear until after BBC Scotland's documentary. Or maybe he was waiting to see if Whyte offered him a job!

I think we all know what the outcome of Lord Nimmo's investigation will be; nothing. No titles will be stripped and there will be much crowing about 'vindication' etc. It is hard to know who will be most upset about this probable outcome; gloating Celtic fans or Traynor himself. If no titles are stripped then it makes his job of stirring up the hordes that much more difficult. Believe me, Traynor wants these titles stripped more than anyone!

Meanwhile, Jabba's pal, Loony Leggat, has decided to have a go at the BBC. His mad tirade about the radio programme only serves to show how much the BBC are bending over backwards to accomodate the Rangers supporters and apologists. It also shows how petty and mean-minded these 'peeppul' are, refusing to appear unless things go along with their own agenda. Chris Graham was one of these 'peeppul.' This was the guy that cited a pub in the West End of Glasgow as an 'enemy of Rangers' because it served jelly and ice-cream! Loony gives his disciples the name and address of somebody at the BBC. The poor guy can expect a flood of death threats, written on torn paper with blue, chubby-stump crayons!

Loony also has a go at Neil Lennon for having the colours green, white and gold on his tracksuit. He demands that UEFA does something about it. Maybe UEFA should also look into the stars adorning the New Rangers' shirts. After all, they are not merited under any criteria!

THE SECTARIAN ACE

Bill McMurdo has let one particular cat out of the bag; a mangy, bad-tempered brute of a feline at that. In a blog post he calls for Rangers to adopt a hymn called 'We Have An Anchor' as an official Rangers song. So what? Well, this song has been used for years by the Boys' Brigade, whose motto is 'Sure and Steadfast.' Again, so what? Well, McMurdo describes the Boys' Brigade as "another fine Protestant institution.' The main 'fine Protestant institution' of course, is obviously Rangers FC.

The word 'Protestant' is a strange one. It's way out of date and was used to describe those of a certain German denomination away back in the early, heady days of the Reformation. These days, however, it doesn't seem to refer to any denomination at all. Members of a church will identify themselves as being members of that church, whether it be Church of Scotland, Free Church, Episcopalian or whatever. The word 'Protestant' is now a negative term only used to demonstrate the fact that the person is not a Catholic.

I remember years ago I decided to join the RAF as an officer and went along to an induction day. The recruiting sergeant was in fits of laughter at some of the candidates when it came to filling in the 'denomination' part of the application form. He could not get them to understand that there was no such thing as the 'Protestant Church.' They had no idea where they were baptised, or even if they had been! I changed my mind about joining and hope to Christ that those others did too; can you imagine relying on them for the defence of our country?

Anyway, McMurdo's revelation puts the tirades of Traynor and Loony Leggat into perspective. The whole 'Joining together against the enemy' bit takes on a more sinister slant. Basically, they are trying to divide everyone along sectarian lines and will use any twisting of facts or downright lies to achieve their aim. Leggat uses the word 'Presbyterian' instead of 'Protestant' but essentially means the same thing. Certainly the Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian church but, then, so is the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. I doubt any of the many decent people in the Church of Scotland would be happy to be lumped in with a church that had as one of its principal tenets the belief that black people did not have souls! Leggat, however, is just using the term 'Presbyterian' as another negative dividing line, promoting a 'them and us' agenda. 

A major part of this divisive agenda is the cynical use of the crime of child abuse to score points. Up until fairly recently sexual abuse against children was a hidden crime, something that everyone pretended didn't exist. Even twenty years ago everyone was shocked about social work investigation into ritual abuse by some of the leading lights in society: judges, politicians etc. The Orkney scandal, where some poor minister was dragged into a witch-hunt, was obviously, to anyone with half a brain, a put-up job to deflect attention and discredit the social work department. Now, of course, things are different.

Organisations all over the world that involve children have been caught up in investigations. Holiday camps in France have closed down due to instances of child abuse, while the Scouts, the Boys' Brigade and churches have had their fair share of abusers exposed. The Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses have been rocked by such revelations and anyone with any decency agrees that the perpetrators should be made to pay. To the 'Protestants' of Scotland, however, there are only two places where child abuse ever took place: the Catholic Church and Celtic Boys Club!

One sick individual, posting on The Sun's website, said that nobody could take the moral high ground with Rangers as they had this 'ace up their sleeve.' Using such a thing as a stick to beat others with is probably about as low as you can get!

Now, don't get me wrong; I don't have any drum to beat for the Catholic Church and think that any priest responsible for these outrages should be defrocked and frog-marched straight into jail. I think the same for any individual that indulges their sick, base desires in this way. I am not, however, going to point the finger at the Jehovah's Witnesses or anyone else when I don't know exactly what has happened.

Away back in the old days, even up to the Sixties, it used to be thought that a bloody good hiding was the panacea for any of society's ills. Gay people were seen as doing something wrong and were beaten up accordingly. I do not wish to equate being gay with being a paedophile but that's what people used to do. So anyone accused of 'interfering' with a child would be beaten to within an inch of their life and that would be the end of it unless they did it again. From my understanding of the situation, that's what happened at Celtic with James Torbett. 

Great play is made about Celtic employing Torbett in another capacity and not doing anything else. Was this a 'cover up' as many suggest, or was it something else? If Torbett had been sacked and the police notified then I can imagine all too well what the reaction of certain sections of our population would have been. A poor 'Protestant' man being picked on by the Taigs and he would have become a cause celebre for the likes of Leggat. You can't possibly win with these people!

The major irony is that if Celtic had followed the same kind of sectarian policy as Rangers then Torbett would never have been in any way associated with Celtic. The 'Protestants' go on and on about hating Catholics, calling them Fenians, Taigs, Tarriers etc. and then suddenly turn round full of crocodile tears for poor Catholic children abused by priests and Catholic lads abused by Torbett. Their ire and thirst for justice never extends beyond Celtic and the Catholic Church, which tends to negate any arguments they come out with about caring for victims!

So please, let's leave child abuse to the authorities and religion to the pious souls that actually attend church. The main issue is football and what Rangers did to themselves, nothing else!

BOGGING BLOGGING

There seems to have been an upsurge lately in labelling people 'Rangers haters' and in promulgating the myth that everyone, SFA, SPL, the Scottish media et al, has it in for Green's club and that the position they find themselves in now is none of their own doing whatsoever. Traynor, Leggat and McMurdo, the Three Wise Monkeys of Billydom, have been harping on about this and even calling for boycotts of certain newspapers. Strangely, and sinisterly, they actually seem to be fostering a real belief in this rehashing of Mein Kampf territory!

Now let's get one thing straight: I don't hate Rangers per se. What I have always hated is the supremacist, Kantian philosophy that many of the supporters of the team always had that they were 'The Peeppil' and above the rules, the law and anything else you might care to mention. At one time this might have been true but we are now in the 21st Century and such attitudes belong firmly in the past. Like white Rhodesians during UDI, however, they hate having to be equal to everyone else.

Leggat finds it difficult to do a day's blogging without mentioning the word 'Presbyterian.' He bemoans the loss of the 'Good Old Days' when the Kirk practically ruled Scotland, when his granny could look down on others of different denominations and when everyone else, especially the Paddies, knew their place. His whole world view is based on this skewed version of Scottish history and, to his mind, Rangers represents this lost Presbyterian paradise. Ibrox is the last bastion of this fight against modernity and needs to be maintained in order to provide a focus for him and those with similar views. As somebody posted on another blog, 'Rangers is more than just a football team; it is a way of life.' To achieve his desired aims Leggat goes one stage further than Traynor's call for a boycott of certain newspapers; he wants Rangers-supporting businessmen to stop advertising in these newspapers as well!

So where will it all end? A poster on Bill McMurdo's blog suggests only doing business with the 'brothers.' How are they going to know which businesses do not belong to the 'brothers'? Maybe painting a yellow star of David on their premises might help!

Anyway, apart from all this Third Reich nonsense, there is one major flaw in all this 'internet bampot' stuff: it's not true! Despite what Traynor might claim, not one section of our media has said that Rangers is a new team; nobody, nadie, personne, nessuno, nemo! Every single newspaper, radio station and TV channel has gone along with the 'holding company' story and acquiesced in the myth that the new Rangers is the same club with its history intact. The idea that our media is always having a go at Rangers is all in Traynor's head!

Leggat, meanwhile, tries to peddle the old 'bad as each other' bit and accuses the meeja of covering up Celtic stories while revelling in putting Rangers through the grinder. I have already, elsewhere on this blog, dissected his ridiculous rants about the Daily Record and the winding-up order. Now his wrath has turned to the BBC. Apparently some Celtic supporters were singing about looking forward to dancing on Gazza's grave. Pretty nasty stuff, no matter what you think of Gascoigne. The BBC said nothing about this and Leggat contrasts this with the furore over 'The Famine Song.' The big problem, though, is that you get a few idiots singing and chanting at every football ground in Scotland and you would have to strain your ears to hear them, never mind discern what they're on about. Whenever Rangers fans decide to sing or chant something offensive, however, it's practically the whole support that joins in. It's the minority of Rangers fans that DON'T join in! If watching on TV or listening to the radio you have to turn the volume down to stop yourself being deafened, rather than strain to hear what they're singing!

So, in conclusion, this whole thing is just one big lie! I started this blog because I was absolutely sickened by the sheer mendacity of Traynor and his ilk and nothing has changed. If Traynor and his supporters want to attach some credibility to their outlandish claims then they need to start providing concrete evidence of this 'anti-Rangers' agenda in the press. And this evidence needs to be far more convincing and far more credible than the twisted examples provided by Loony Leggat.

As a post-script I was reading The Sun online today and commented on the story about Ticketus chasing Craig Whyte for their money. I commented that this might have a knock-on effect. Whyte gave the money to Lloyds TSB, who might also be targeted by Ticketus. Lloyds TSB would then want the money that Rangers owe them and take Green to court. This comment sat for ages awaiting moderation before disappearing, the powers-that-be obviously not happy with it. Does that sound like a newspaper with a rabidly anti-Rangers agenda to you? Meanwhile the Daily Record is full of stories about Ally's future signings, how Craig Whyte is to blame for everything and how Green is going to buy back the Arsenal shares! Yep, that anti-Rangers agenda is certainly rolling along!

ABU JABBA

Has anybody noticed that Traynor's diatribes on the Rangers web site are becoming increasingly like the rants of Loony Leggat? The latest example is that both of them are frothing at the mouth over the stories about Rangers owing £400,000 to a far-Eastern company called Orlit. Leggat trots out the paranoid tripe we have all come to expect: anti-Rangers agendas etc. etc. but, amazingly, Traynor goes down the same path. He even follows Leggat's lead in calling for a boycott of newspapers that print anything 'anti-Rangers!'

If I'm to believe what I'm told, Traynor was once an important and conscientious journalist. Like Citizen Kane, however, he eventually sold out. Over the past few years he has slavishly followed the Ibrox party line to the detriment of any journalistic skills he might have had. Under his editorial command the sports pages of the Daily Record never questioned anything that was going on at Ibrox, even cravenly believing everything that Craig Whyte said. Remember the ring-fenced funds, the off-the-radar wealth, the warchest, the front-loaded money for players? All Traynor's doing.

Now he contents himself by lambasting others for doing what he should have been doing all along. The story about owing money to Orlit surfaced on the internet and was reported as such in the papers. The newspapers reported these rumours as rumours and, like journalists should do, they asked Rangers for their side of the story. The pronouncement from Ibrox was that the stories were untrue. To Traynor that should have been the end of the matter and if he had still been at the Daily Record that would have been the end. The nasty, evil, Rangers-hating journos now at the DR, however, then got in touch with Orlit, who confirmed that they were going for a winding-up order. How dare they print such things!

We all learned recently, after the brouhaha created about Kilmarnock and the catering company, that a winding-up order is not really such a big deal. The way the papers reported it you would have thought that Kilmarnock were only minutes from liquidation! We soon found out otherwise. So now, wiser, we read the same thing about Rangers and realise that it's probably not that big a deal. So does that mean that the newspapers should ignore it? 

Traynor therefore makes himself look totally ridiculous by making such a big hoo-hah about this. The way he is going on makes it look as if there is something to hide. He could easily just have laughed it off but no, he has to put it in the context of some great anti-Rangers conspiracy in the press, à-la-Leggat. He bangs on about journalists claiming that Rangers is a new club, when it's not. Strangely, that's something that I've not seen in any Scottish newspaper; every journo in Scotland has gone along with the lie that Traynor gives us: that Rangers is not a new club, it merely has a new owner. This is garbage. Green failed to buy the club when his CVA proposal was shot down.  He, possibly illegally, bought the assets and started a new club. Every journalist in Scotland, however, has gone along with Traynor's view, despite what he might say. He is basically lying to stir up trouble.

He also contradicts previous statements of his when he has a go about the TUPE case. He condemns papers for reporting that Green had 'lost' the case when, as he points out, it was not the final decision. And yet, when the First Tier tribunal came down on Rangers' side in the tax case he trumpeted this as a Rangers victory when, as the very name suggests, this was just the first stage. Talk about twisted!

 Traynor has always come across as a bit of a bully-boy. On his radio programme anyone that phoned in and disagreed with him was liable to be shouted down, put down with snide, personal remarks and even just cut off. And like some panjandrum in the Chinese Communist Party he fears the internet and the chance it gives for people to speak back. When comments were no longer allowed on the Daily Record website one of the reasons given was that people were making personal comments about their staff. No prizes for guessing which member of staff spat the dummy there!

So Traynor has found his niche; a forum where nobody gets to answer back and he has a totally captive audience. He is going to have to be careful, however, with this rabble-rousing rhetoric. Convincing folk that there is a huge conspiracy against them, trying to keep them down is a dangerous business. It seems remarkably similar to the ravings of Abu Hamza, who tries to incite Muslims to fight back against their so-called oppressors. Traynor's call to arms is unfortunately of exactly the same ilk. He might couch it all in calls for boycotts etc but the hatred pours out of every syllable. What does he think is going to be the end product of all this bile and hatred and these calls for vengeance? I hope when the inevitable violence does rear its ugly head he is prosecuted for his part in inciting it!



 

BILL BITES THE BILLIES

Bill Leckie's article in The Sun yesterday no doubt got a lot of backs up. Mark Hateley will be tearing what's left of his hair out, Loony Leggat will be spitting his Presbyterian porridge everywhere and Traynor will have the daggers drawn! Incidentally, Leckie's description of Traynor was spot on: the 'newly-appointed Director of Provocation.' Brilliance.

It takes a brave man to speak out against all the blame and hatred coming out of Ibrox, especially given the track record of the Blue Meanies in dealing with those they class as 'enemies.' No doubt Bill Leckie will have to collect his own mail from the local Post Office from now on! I still think this fear was a major contributing factor in the decision of the First Tier tax tribunal. 

Meanwhile Keith Jackson decides to tread the same path in the Daily Record. Compared to Leckie, however, his article is somewhat anodyne. He comes across as pleading and wheedling rather than condemning. And he sees the need to trot out the old myth that Rangers were hard-done-by.

"...as they lay sobbing and bloodied with an outstretched hand, others took it in turn to boot them into the gutter. In their darkest hour, they found no friendship or sympathy. Only more hostility and hatred."

Pathetic, isn't it!

It's about time somebody grew a backbone and stood up to this bullying. Our sports media seem terrified to criticise anything relating to Rangers and go along with everything that Green says. This was apparent in the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Green being told that he is due nothing for the exodus of players like Lafferty. Nobody questions the morality or legality of Green's claims; they just bemoan the fact that he is not getting the cash. Loony Leggat sees it as another example of the anti-Rangers bias, led by Peter Lawwell, endemic in our society.

The fact is that TUPE legislation is there to protect employees when somebody buys the company that employs them. It stands for TRANSFER of UNDERTAKINGS (PROTECTION of EMPLOYMENT). It is there to stop unscrupulous buyers from getting rid of staff to cut costs. The whole crux of the legislation is that employees are entitled, if they wish, to transfer their employment to their new boss with all the benefits of their previous contract. The legislation is not there to force employees to work for a new boss, as Green seems to think.

The Big Doublethink comes into play here for Green and his apologists. Green did not buy the company; he bought the assets and started a new company. Now, on the one hand he claims that it's a different company that has no obligations to creditors, while, on the other hand, he claims that it's the same company, which he bought, and in which players like Lafferty were still employed. All these players, remember, signed up for a deferment in wages to help Rangers. Was Green intending to repay these wages? Or would that have been one of the times where it was a different company? It makes your head spin just trying to get to grips with all this duplicity!

So kudos to Bill Leckie. Is this the turning point in how our Fourth Estate conducts itself over matters Rangers? I won't hold my breath!