Elwood

Wow, a real live internet hard man getting rattled because you made a mistake. I don't care about the nature of religion. Anyway, if you're quite finished maybe we can get this back on topic. You see thats my problem - you see I know of Manti - and Manti knows of me - we go to the places real bears frequent...speak and express their feelings and thoughts. The opinions you have expressed never seem to surface. Can you tell me why that is ? Pathetic. You sound like a wee boy trying to impress what you think of as the 'real Rangers fans' with your sycophantic reply to the 'feck off' thread and now your latest post. Real bears in your world are all Protestants I suppose? Perhaps you should take yourself out of your closed little world and realise there are plenty Rangers supporters who are not card carrying protestants. I respected you had different views and opinions throughout this thread but do not respect your inference that people are less of a Rangers fan because they are not clones of you and your mates. This is the end of my involvement in your thread.

Wow, a real live internet hard man getting rattled because you made a mistake. I don't care about the nature of religion. Anyway, if you're quite finished maybe we can get this back on topic. Rattled? You obviously rate yourself highly. You could not be more wrong. And I won't be 'rattled' by your suggestion that I made some sort of mistake either. At least you concede that you don't understand the point. Frankly I wonder why you bother attempting to contribute to such a debate when you are so out of your depth. At least I would womder if I didn't see it so regularly. Anyway enjoy, I'm told it is bliss. Stop digging mate, you'll only look more ridiculous. By taking the effort to bold and italic letters in 'feck off' it shows you're rattled. You misunderstood my post you quoted, no big deal, move on. Your point was pointless since it was based on you completely misunderstanding my post.

Its not polite...its not pc...but by goodness it summons everything I want to say ! You started off well with decent debate but in reality that's what you want to say to people who disagree with you or are you just tubing up the forum main men?

Wow, a real live internet hard man getting rattled because you made a mistake. I don't care about the nature of religion. Anyway, if you're quite finished maybe we can get this back on topic.

Epic! Agree with the others Naismith's control and finish were quality. Good to see us getting the injured back too.

And I don't care what the believers of a beardy man in the clouds says. I have my own outlook on life and it's not dependent on an old book. What a dumb post. What the 'beardy man in the clouds' might say is neither here nor there, religion is a political, cultural and social phenomenon as well as 'spiritual'. Anyway great post D'Art and hello from Nuremburg. As always, there is none so blind as he who will not see.... Re read it. What I said, cheekily, is I don't care what people who believe in god, says. Not what god says. With respect I suggest you should re-read mine. Although to make it clearer the 'none so blind' comment was not particularly directed at you. What the 'beardy man in the clouds' might say is neither here nor there That clearly shows you thought I meant what god says instead of what his followers say.

Well thats where we do disagree. One thing we have to do on here as a site is agree on the influence of the press...and there appears to be differing views. Those who dismiss anti-Rangers articles fail to address one fact - the power of the media. If they are such a non entity why do politicians and celebrities seek to charm them and keep them onside. ? I would respectfully suggest its because they have the power to influence. The second most untrustworthy profession behind politicians. Don't over estimate their power.

Yeah it's worth it but if you ask me if our youth coaching is up to scratch then I'd have to say no.

And I don't care what the believers of a beardy man in the clouds says. I have my own outlook on life and it's not dependent on an old book. What a dumb post. What the 'beardy man in the clouds' might say is neither here nor there, religion is a political, cultural and social phenomenon as well as 'spiritual'. Anyway great post D'Art and hello from Nuremburg. As always, there is none so blind as he who will not see.... Re read it. What I said, cheekily, is I don't care what people who believe in god, says. Not what god says. Her target in the main were a readership who were unaware or uneducated as to the truth. I doubt very much the majority saw her as an anti- Ragers bigot. and you know this, how?

Well we did - but the rest is history as they say. Well I have a number of thoughts on this. The PCC is only a regulatory/advisory body. In other words.... a toothless tiger. If Rangers had taken legal action it would have been interesting to see how those accusations could have been substantiated in a court of law. Tell me how are we fighting the untruths ? In fact why do we continue to fight them ? Should they not be elimanted at source ? Spiers continues to enjoy press box privillieges at Ibrox. is that really fighting untruth with truth ? Seems there is scope for taking it further.. Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. Spiers would love to be barred from Ibrox, a martyr in his own corduroys. To be fair a month or two back I posted a couple of his articles (on another site) that really had a go at celtc and it surprised everyone that read it as most feel he's purely anti Rangers. I think he's just a sycophant who lets it cloud his judgement and colour his work. Repeatedly pointing this out (a lie repeated often enough becomes a fact!) would hit him harder than just calling him a tosser. Clearly he's been stung with criticisms of bias and it's these attacks (with good reason) on his credibility that will hurt him far more than any ban from Ibrox. No offence Elwood....and without speaking for others Bears on this site....but I would imagine that no matter what Spiers said...he will never EVER be forgiven. I never asked for him to be forgiven and don't expect him to be either. Personally I really don't care what some nerdoid journalist has to say but the things that will hurt him most isn't being banned from Ibrox (in my opinion), it's attacks on his professional and personal integrity and his credibility.

We have had numerous catholic players...a catholic captain....a catholic manager. 1 Tell me what is the influence which causes catholics from supporting us ? 2 1. Yes we have. 2 The influence is the one inferred by dummiesoot that this bad publicity of Rangers and it's fans being bigots and sectarian will affect future fan numbers. How would it affect protestants from following the club? Clearly the only people this would affect is catholics as it's alleged in the press it's them who are the target of abuse. I believe in this day and age where the influence of the church is greatly diminished that the 'Catholic' supporter is not an issue but what would be best termed a 'floating supporter' why be bothered with the hassle of being branded a bigot when you could support another team not branded by the press as sectarian. Like I said, I think most people either follow the club their dad does or are taken in by Man U! Most people have a favourite club while still in primary school and at that age all this baggage isn't really an issue to them. They wont understand it. We are chosen, and the rest are just glory hunters. I was a glory hunter choosing us during celtcs 9IAR? On yerself Minsty. Naivety is bliss !! Why is that naive? What team does your dad follow? My sons brother is 10, he's no idea about the basis of the celtc Rangers antagonism. Don't delude yourself into thinking the whole country is Glasgow and consumed about these issues.

Well we did - but the rest is history as they say. Well I have a number of thoughts on this. The PCC is only a regulatory/advisory body. In other words.... a toothless tiger. If Rangers had taken legal action it would have been interesting to see how those accusations could have been substantiated in a court of law. Tell me how are we fighting the untruths ? In fact why do we continue to fight them ? Should they not be elimanted at source ? Spiers continues to enjoy press box privillieges at Ibrox. is that really fighting untruth with truth ? Seems there is scope for taking it further.. Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. Spiers would love to be barred from Ibrox, a martyr in his own corduroys. To be fair a month or two back I posted a couple of his articles (on another site) that really had a go at celtc and it surprised everyone that read it as most feel he's purely anti Rangers. I think he's just a sycophant who lets it cloud his judgement and colour his work. Repeatedly pointing this out (a lie repeated often enough becomes a fact!) would hit him harder than just calling him a tosser. Clearly he's been stung with criticisms of bias and it's these attacks (with good reason) on his credibility that will hurt him far more than any ban from Ibrox.

We have had numerous catholic players...a catholic captain....a catholic manager. 1 Tell me what is the influence which causes catholics from supporting us ? 2 1. Yes we have. 2 The influence is the one inferred by dummiesoot that this bad publicity of Rangers and it's fans being bigots and sectarian will affect future fan numbers. How would it affect protestants from following the club? Clearly the only people this would affect is catholics as it's alleged in the press it's them who are the target of abuse. I believe in this day and age where the influence of the church is greatly diminished that the 'Catholic' supporter is not an issue but what would be best termed a 'floating supporter' why be bothered with the hassle of being branded a bigot when you could support another team not branded by the press as sectarian. Like I said, I think most people either follow the club their dad does or are taken in by Man U! Most people have a favourite club while still in primary school and at that age all this baggage isn't really an issue to them. They wont understand it.

And I don't care what the believers of a beardy man in the clouds says. I have my own outlook on life and it's not dependent on an old book.

What should I get on my top thread? What's a top thread or is there a comma missing from your title?

We have had numerous catholic players...a catholic captain....a catholic manager. 1 Tell me what is the influence which causes catholics from supporting us ? 2 1. Yes we have. 2 The influence is the one inferred by dummiesoot that this bad publicity of Rangers and it's fans being bigots and sectarian will affect future fan numbers. How would it affect protestants from following the club? Clearly the only people this would affect is catholics as it's alleged in the press it's them who are the target of abuse.

Did the Sunday Mirror print this link ? Did you or any of the others who took umbrage send it in? Are you going to sit back the rest of your life complaining on forums and waiting for someone else to defend you? I complained to the editor about this article. When I got brushed off I compained to the PCC. They excused it as "opinion" rather than fact. I wrote to them further but they would not alter their ruling. Criticise me about what I write all you want. But dont ever criticise me for not taking action to defend our club. So what could Rangers do since you yourself have found out this piece can be categorised as opinion by the press regulatory body? Don't you think David Murray has got top quality legal advice at his disposal? Why did you choose this example anyway given your experience with the PCC and doesn't this back up my view that it's not as clear cut as you think for Rangers to swoop in and take this woman, and others, to task? The best way to fight untruths is with the truth.

BP - are you trying to suggest Im associated to Anna Smith's cause I think perhaps you got your numbers jumbled !! No it doesn't... but perhaps I missed the official statement saying that the staus quo had changed. Is the sash or Derry's walls on the Ibrox forbidden list ? 1. I'll make it clearer - you have a cause - Anna Smith has a cause and you BOTH want to use Rangers to furher your cause - but both your causes have no place in football! Allowing the singing of songs is not an endorsement and as you well know the club is more than what the current custodians say or do but if you are looking to them for leadership then they have been loud and clear on their stance on bigotry - and your stance is little different from Anna Smiths - except you are on the opposite side from her but you and her both want to use our club to further your causes. BP9, the lines have become very very blurred by people like A Smith, the definition of sectarianism is becoming closer to being lifted for singing the chorus of a song rather than actually being found guilty of calling someone a dirty Catholic bastard or a dirty Protestant bastard, the battle lines have been drawn by the offended and are now accepted in law, where is that legal or fair, jailed, fined whatever, because you sing TFIO? You tell me where do Rangers stand up for the fans when the song is patently a wind up? football is becoming sanitised by the offended (except when it them doing the singing apparently) Some tarty old bint is not the person who defines what is and is not sectarian. The guy fined for TFIO was also caught and reported for shouting genuine sectarian stuff at the same time... Chances are if he had only sung the FIO he could have won his argument but clearly the other stuff he was coming away with undermined him completely. To be sectarian you firstly need to be a member of a sect, protestant or catholic, then you have to abuse the other because they are a member of the other sect. How can you redefine that? The police are already targetting people for 'intent' when the FIO is being sung, 'because they know the rest of the words to the song'. If I could be arsed I'd find the source but believe me it will not be long before someone gets done for 'intent'. Why is it okay to be a Sad Orange Bastard, but not a Sad f****n Bastard. I feel inclined to asterisk out the F word but it makes my point leaving it in.. someone gets offended and SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH, it becomes sectarian. That is how Scotland appears to work now. EDIT See what I mean the F word gets asterisked automatically on here! I'm not against people fighting their corner so don't get me wrong here. My point is, if someone is called 'Orange this, that or the other' it's not the clubs responsibility to defend them. If you're an Orange Man and someone calls you this, do something about it. If all people do is complain on Rangers forums, what's that going to change? People have to make an issue of it and in numbers before action will be taken. That's the way it's always been. Actually it does affect the club, bad press affects potential support, perhaps you could jump to the a supporter is born not made but, in this day and age there are more people supporting successful and high profile clubs. Rangers profile is affected by bad press, so if there is a case then they should stand up for the fans, not give in because Declan says so. I'm in my mid forties. Even as a teenager out my way (the East coast) Rangers had a reputation amongst fans of the provincial sides for having bigoted fans. Celtc did too. There's nothing new to this, and we still have huge amounts of fans. Kids tend to follow the team their dad follows. The only people put off from choosing us as their team would be catholics and given that most people choose their clubs at an early age the baggage doesn't come into it for them.

According to some press reports Weir had a go at Papac at one point for giving someone too much space but other than that, I've nae idea!

Did the Sunday Mirror print this link ? Did you or any of the others who took umbrage send it in? Are you going to sit back the rest of your life complaining on forums and waiting for someone else to defend you?

BP - are you trying to suggest Im associated to Anna Smith's cause I think perhaps you got your numbers jumbled !! No it doesn't... but perhaps I missed the official statement saying that the staus quo had changed. Is the sash or Derry's walls on the Ibrox forbidden list ? 1. I'll make it clearer - you have a cause - Anna Smith has a cause and you BOTH want to use Rangers to furher your cause - but both your causes have no place in football! Allowing the singing of songs is not an endorsement and as you well know the club is more than what the current custodians say or do but if you are looking to them for leadership then they have been loud and clear on their stance on bigotry - and your stance is little different from Anna Smiths - except you are on the opposite side from her but you and her both want to use our club to further your causes. BP9, the lines have become very very blurred by people like A Smith, the definition of sectarianism is becoming closer to being lifted for singing the chorus of a song rather than actually being found guilty of calling someone a dirty Catholic bastard or a dirty Protestant bastard, the battle lines have been drawn by the offended and are now accepted in law, where is that legal or fair, jailed, fined whatever, because you sing TFIO? You tell me where do Rangers stand up for the fans when the song is patently a wind up? football is becoming sanitised by the offended (except when it them doing the singing apparently) Some tarty old bint is not the person who defines what is and is not sectarian. The guy fined for TFIO was also caught and reported for shouting genuine sectarian stuff at the same time... Chances are if he had only sung the FIO he could have won his argument but clearly the other stuff he was coming away with undermined him completely. To be sectarian you firstly need to be a member of a sect, protestant or catholic, then you have to abuse the other because they are a member of the other sect. How can you redefine that? The police are already targetting people for 'intent' when the FIO is being sung, 'because they know the rest of the words to the song'. If I could be arsed I'd find the source but believe me it will not be long before someone gets done for 'intent'. Why is it okay to be a Sad Orange Bastard, but not a Sad f****n Bastard. I feel inclined to asterisk out the F word but it makes my point leaving it in.. someone gets offended and SHOUTS LOUD ENOUGH, it becomes sectarian. That is how Scotland appears to work now. EDIT See what I mean the F word gets asterisked automatically on here! I'm not against people fighting their corner so don't get me wrong here. My point is, if someone is called 'Orange this, that or the other' it's not the clubs responsibility to defend them. If you're an Orange Man and someone calls you this, do something about it. If all people do is complain on Rangers forums, what's that going to change? People have to make an issue of it and in numbers before action will be taken. That's the way it's always been.

Not really an answer though is it ? Bluepeter has highlighted that this woman has an agenda.....but what is it ? And simply no one likes us we dont care doesnt really excuse blatant lying about our club does it ? What is her motivation....what is her target audience ? And to go back to your initial post ....would you not agree that in the light of such an article..which is not unique....our club does need defending ? She's sticking her size whatevers in obviously to appeal to her side, the converted as I said earlier. So if someone believes her claim there were nazi salutes in Israel, point them in this direction... http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:hZjjK...=clnk&gl=uk

BP - are you trying to suggest Im associated to Anna Smith's cause I think perhaps you got your numbers jumbled !! No it doesn't... but perhaps I missed the official statement saying that the staus quo had changed. Is the sash or Derry's walls on the Ibrox forbidden list ? 1. I'll make it clearer - you have a cause - Anna Smith has a cause and you BOTH want to use Rangers to furher your cause - but both your causes have no place in football! Allowing the singing of songs is not an endorsement and as you well know the club is more than what the current custodians say or do but if you are looking to them for leadership then they have been loud and clear on their stance on bigotry - and your stance is little different from Anna Smiths - except you are on the opposite side from her but you and her both want to use our club to further your causes. BP9, the lines have become very very blurred by people like A Smith, the definition of sectarianism is becoming closer to being lifted for singing the chorus of a song rather than actually being found guilty of calling someone a dirty Catholic bastard or a dirty Protestant bastard, the battle lines have been drawn by the offended and are now accepted in law, where is that legal or fair, jailed, fined whatever, because you sing TFIO? You tell me where do Rangers stand up for the fans when the song is patently a wind up? football is becoming sanitised by the offended (except when it them doing the singing apparently) Some tarty old bint is not the person who defines what is and is not sectarian. The guy fined for TFIO was also caught and reported for shouting genuine sectarian stuff at the same time... Chances are if he had only sung the FIO he could have won his argument but clearly the other stuff he was coming away with undermined him completely. To be sectarian you firstly need to be a member of a sect, protestant or catholic, then you have to abuse the other because they are a member of the other sect. How can you redefine that?

May 25th 2007 - Sunday Mirror - Anna Smith "Rangers are now reaping the whirlwind of hate that was nurtured by themselves. Rangers Football Club have fostered bigotry for generations Rangers cultivated sectarianism Imagine singing a song about being up to your knees in Paki blood, but it's ok, it seems, to insult Irish Catholics. They were shamed in 1972 when their moronic bigotted fans ran riot in Barcelona. Then there were the Nazi salutes in Israel last month. For some, Rangers stands for Protestant supremacy in Scotland. " Carefully worded ? Or do you agree with its content ? As far as I can see, many of the attacks on the club in the media are quite carefully worded Answer your own question, what should the club do? Take her to court or ignore a clearly biased woman? UEFA were satisfied with Rangers explanation on the salutes in Israel so who is she kidding - she's preaching to the converted. Exercise your right to reply if one old bints words trouble you that much. I don't know anyone who goes about believing Rangers fans were involved in nazi salutes in Israel so her column is a fail (epic). Do you know anyone who has taken her words as fact? Her article went out to a readership of over a million people. I cannot comment how many people took it as fact. And neither can you. The seed was sown and the damage done. I never asked any question - I simply highlighted her as a transmission belt. Over to you. No one likes us, we don't care. Back to you!

Left mid and centre back please.