The Alternative Histories of the Old Firm

[Cumbria_blue 51]

Just listened to this and I thought it was reasonably balanced (Dr Joe Bradleys musings apart). I'm not sure why they referred to it as an 'alternative history' though as it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

What did Bradley say TWB ? His original dissertation spoke of ra sellick being the sole visible evidence of the Irish immigrants in Scotland.

I take it he has never been to any our town centres where there are numerous Oirish bars...

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

[Adoniram 1,919]

To the outsider listening to this tome you got the impression that all the contributors were fair,rational and knowledgeable about the subject.

Not withstanding the Irish music in the background those with far more knowledge couls see the subtleties in what they were saying and indeed in what they weren't saying.

The majority of it was an Irish Policitcal History Lesson with the mantra of down trodden Catholics clinging to the Celtic ideals.

And all this guff about Celtic being more accepted after 1967...spare me the romantic bullshit.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,274]

The American contributor seems like others to have his facts wrong, he states that "it seems to have come full circle", in that Celtic were founded by Immigrants and he is an Immigrant in the USA supporting Celtic, yet the program clearly states that the club was founded soley for Irish Roman Catholic Imigrants, there were many Irish Imigrants during the famine, some of them would have been Irish Protestants, who would have not needed to adopt Celtic.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Just listened to this and I thought it was reasonably balanced (Dr Joe Bradleys musings apart). I'm not sure why they referred to it as an 'alternative history' though as it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

What did Bradley say TWB ? His original dissertation spoke of ra sellick being the sole visible evidence of the Irish immigrants in Scotland.

I take it he has never been to any our town centres where there are numerous Oirish bars...

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

Cheers CB

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

Erm, the broadcast clearly stated that Hibernian were the first to do it in Scotland and that rasellik copied them. And, notably, they failed to mention at all the murderer on the run from the law as one of the founders of this - ahem - charitable outfit.

I chuckled at the way that Irish poverty was portrayed - as if they were the only dirt poor and desperate in Scotland at the time.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

Erm, the broadcast clearly stated that Hibernian were the first to do it in Scotland and that rasellik copied them. And, notably, they failed to mention at all the murderer on the run from the law as one of the founders of this - ahem - charitable outfit.

I chuckled at the way that Irish poverty was portrayed - as if they were the only dirt poor and desperate in Scotland at the time.

Did it mention the poaching of Hibernian players MM - so that they could field an all Catholic team ?

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

British

Broadcasting

Catholics

says it all !

FFS!

says it all ! - about many a Rangers fan.

FFS. He's bang on.

Says it all about many hand-wringers.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,274]

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

Erm, the broadcast clearly stated that Hibernian were the first to do it in Scotland and that rasellik copied them. And, notably, they failed to mention at all the murderer on the run from the law as one of the founders of this - ahem - charitable outfit.

I chuckled at the way that Irish poverty was portrayed - as if they were the only dirt poor and desperate in Scotland at the time.

Did it mention the poaching of Hibernian players MM - so that they could field an all Catholic team ?

Yes they did mention that they poached Hibs players, can't remember if they mentioned the "all catholic" thing

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Like I said, I admit to being premature but I think caution is justified given the previous from the people involved.

Devine may be an authoritative figure in some people's eyes; in mine he's a joke. Spiers may also be a broadsheet journalist but his credibility is non-existent. Why even invite them onto the programme? Or did they propose the subject?

As a subscriber to the BBC (and as a listener to Radio Scotland as well actually), I expect better for my money; even if the content can't be judged fairly as yet.

Tom Devine is not neutral and neither is Spiers. Right away, that compromises the success of the show so I'm surprised any producer would willingly use such people unless they fancy a bit of cheap controversy themselves.

See this is interesting Frankie, this is where our various realities diverge. To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. Devine is a Celtic fan, Speirs claims to be (have been) a Rangers fan. Both of their 'day jobs' do give them added credibility in the eyes of someone with only a vague interest in football too. To someone outside of the Old Firm bubble they look authoritive and balanced. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

Now we know different, certainly where Speirs is concerned, but to expect everyone to know that is hopeful in the extreme.

We've discussed this before on other threads that looked like they are about other subjects; but they are connected. Speirs is probably the only mainstream broadsheet journalist willing to publicly say he is/was a Rangers fan, as such he's the go-to-guy when a voxpop like this is required. We find that laughable but it is what it is. The bigger question in all this is why Speirs is the only one?

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible.

Let's stop and examine this one for a moment.

Ask ourselves - why would this be?

Could it be that "your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner" is in all probability an Earl Haig?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity", going on about how great it was that they did that. Also went on and on about the "abject, notorious poverty" of the irish catholic populaiton of Scotland. Failed to mention how it only lasted a few months.

Erm, the broadcast clearly stated that Hibernian were the first to do it in Scotland and that rasellik copied them. And, notably, they failed to mention at all the murderer on the run from the law as one of the founders of this - ahem - charitable outfit.

I chuckled at the way that Irish poverty was portrayed - as if they were the only dirt poor and desperate in Scotland at the time.

Did it mention the poaching of Hibernian players MM - so that they could field an all Catholic team ?

The poaching was discussed but no comment on motivation for a catholic player exclusivity. They did suggest, however, that sectarianism in Scotland could be argued to be an Irish problem. I nearly fell off my chair

[clelandhattrick 8]

It was a perfunctory documentary. I guess that's just because it was the opening episode and the following programmes will be more in-depth.

Some of the comments in this thread are mental. People complaining without even listening to it!

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

The only real gripes I would have with that are that they failed to mention that charity lasted six months at Celtic before being replaced with bribery, by those seeking to make a profit from the professional game, which was growing significantly at that time. They also chose to bring up the Rangers 'signing policy' whilst failing to mention Celtic's treatment of it's Protestant employees, or the lack of them in the director's box.

At least they mentioned that Celtic were formed to keep Catholics in the faith and out of Protestant soup kitchens though, which was surprising.

That was Graham Walker that said that. He's a Rangers fan, don't think Bradley or Devine could bring themselves to admit that. But like you say the inclusion of Walker does show that they showed a bit of balance.

Bill Murray said it as well.

[keithgersbear 3,225]

So Rangers are the best?

[Briton 394]

Just listened to this and I thought it was reasonably balanced (Dr Joe Bradleys musings apart). I'm not sure why they referred to it as an 'alternative history' though as it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

What did Bradley say TWB ? His original dissertation spoke of ra sellick being the sole visible evidence of the Irish immigrants in Scotland.

I take it he has never been to any our town centres where there are numerous Oirish bars...

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity"

Didn't Rangers play Hibs to help them raise money for a Catholic school? I remember reading about it but can't remember where.

[AMMS 27]

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commisioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

I struggle to accept that those charged with this commission would be unaware of Devine & Spiers' previous when reporting on The Rangers. The Scottish media is incestuous, gossip ridden and intensely aware of career styles and any success/failure/resulting controversies regarding well known figures.

Best listen for yourself - Radio Scotland page

You'd be surprised. I know several BBC programme commissioners, all of them are female, one of them is English and none of them could tell you the first thing about football. I don't know who commissioned this programme but I'd be surprised if it was someone who has a genuine understanding of the personalities involved and their reputations with many supporters. Outside of Rangers messageboards Speirs in particular is remarkably well thought of, I've had some jaw-dropping conversations with Rangers fans about Speirs, real fans, who have never read anything he's written and only know him as the slightly posh guy on Scotsport, they are amazed when I explain the animosity there is towards him. To be honest it is guys like us that live in the bubble, out there in the real world people don't really care about this kind of thing.

[AMMS 27]

Like I said, I admit to being premature but I think caution is justified given the previous from the people involved.

Devine may be an authoritative figure in some people's eyes; in mine he's a joke. Spiers may also be a broadsheet journalist but his credibility is non-existent. Why even invite them onto the programme? Or did they propose the subject?

As a subscriber to the BBC (and as a listener to Radio Scotland as well actually), I expect better for my money; even if the content can't be judged fairly as yet.

Tom Devine is not neutral and neither is Spiers. Right away, that compromises the success of the show so I'm surprised any producer would willingly use such people unless they fancy a bit of cheap controversy themselves.

See this is interesting Frankie, this is where our various realities diverge. To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. Devine is a Celtic fan, Speirs claims to be (have been) a Rangers fan. Both of their 'day jobs' do give them added credibility in the eyes of someone with only a vague interest in football too. To someone outside of the Old Firm bubble they look authoritive and balanced. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

Now we know different, certainly where Speirs is concerned, but to expect everyone to know that is hopeful in the extreme.

We've discussed this before on other threads that looked like they are about other subjects; but they are connected. Speirs is probably the only mainstream broadsheet journalist willing to publicly say he is/was a Rangers fan, as such he's the go-to-guy when a voxpop like this is required. We find that laughable but it is what it is. The bigger question in all this is why Speirs is the only one?

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible.

Let's stop and examine this one for a moment.

Ask ourselves - why would this be?

Could it be that "your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner" is in all probability an Earl Haig?

Not in my experience, but I don't know them all. As I said up thread it would be a mistake if we mistook ignorance for bias. Not everyone has the in-depth knowledge or interest in football that many on boards like this do. I'd say most radio and TV programme commissioners fall into that category, even in a football obsessed city like Glasgow.

I've not heard the programme yet but judging from the comments on here it doesn't seem to have been as inaccurate as some feared.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

So Rangers are the best?

Simply.

[stuartmccallsfall 4]

I forgot one other thing.

Why no mention of the F*nian, Michael Davitt, laying a ceremonial piece of turf. They started as they meant to go on.

You know that scene in good morning Vietnam where all the news is spooling through and the censors rip the paper out the machine and draw lines through the news, this is the Scottish press at the moment. We're told what they think we must know to hold a coherent and balanced argument. It's called censorship or in my mind I call it lying. There's no way they didn't know about this and if they genuinely did not know why the hell are they giving their opinions on subjects where guys like you know better? Until there is fair and unbiased debate in the press, fuck the lot of them.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Just listened to this and I thought it was reasonably balanced (Dr Joe Bradleys musings apart). I'm not sure why they referred to it as an 'alternative history' though as it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

What did Bradley say TWB ? His original dissertation spoke of ra sellick being the sole visible evidence of the Irish immigrants in Scotland.

I take it he has never been to any our town centres where there are numerous Oirish bars...

He really emphasised their "charitable" beginnings. Saying stuff like "no other clubs in were really involved in charity"

Didn't Rangers play Hibs to help them raise money for a Catholic school? I remember reading about it but can't remember where.

Yes I believe I read that Briton....possibly and I say possibly because there are a number of writings I have read around this subject and I may be getting confused in my old age - But I think it was Bill Murray's "The Old Firm & Sectarianism"

[Adoniram 1,919]

Like I said, I admit to being premature but I think caution is justified given the previous from the people involved.

Devine may be an authoritative figure in some people's eyes; in mine he's a joke. Spiers may also be a broadsheet journalist but his credibility is non-existent. Why even invite them onto the programme? Or did they propose the subject?

As a subscriber to the BBC (and as a listener to Radio Scotland as well actually), I expect better for my money; even if the content can't be judged fairly as yet.

Tom Devine is not neutral and neither is Spiers. Right away, that compromises the success of the show so I'm surprised any producer would willingly use such people unless they fancy a bit of cheap controversy themselves.

See this is interesting Frankie, this is where our various realities diverge. To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. Devine is a Celtic fan, Speirs claims to be (have been) a Rangers fan. Both of their 'day jobs' do give them added credibility in the eyes of someone with only a vague interest in football too. To someone outside of the Old Firm bubble they look authoritive and balanced. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

Now we know different, certainly where Speirs is concerned, but to expect everyone to know that is hopeful in the extreme.

We've discussed this before on other threads that looked like they are about other subjects; but they are connected. Speirs is probably the only mainstream broadsheet journalist willing to publicly say he is/was a Rangers fan, as such he's the go-to-guy when a voxpop like this is required. We find that laughable but it is what it is. The bigger question in all this is why Speirs is the only one?

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible.

Let's stop and examine this one for a moment.

Ask ourselves - why would this be?

Could it be that "your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner" is in all probability an Earl Haig?

Not in my experience, but I don't know them all. As I said up thread it would be a mistake if we mistook ignorance for bias. Not everyone has the in-depth knowledge or interest in football that many on boards like this do. I'd say most radio and TV programme commissioners fall into that category, even in a football obsessed city like Glasgow.

I've not heard the programme yet but judging from the comments on here it doesn't seem to have been as inaccurate as some feared.

OK let me see if i am getting this correct.

You're saying that a large proportion of programme commissioners are oblivious to the goings on in the peculiar world of Glasgow Politics and Football....is that correct?

So we have a commissioner putting together a programme on the Old Firm who knows nothing about the subject or the politics involved in putting together such a show.

They then need to find resource material and presenters/producers to put said show together.

So who are they going to ask on the show if they don't know who is who and what their backgrounds are?

Or are they taking advice from other members of staff in seniority who know fine well who is who and what they are?

[Briton 394]

Yes I believe I read that Briton....possibly and I say possibly because there are a number of writings I have read around this subject and I may be getting confused in my old age - But I think it was Bill Murray's "The Old Firm & Sectarianism"

Could be that one. I seem to recall the evidence was that there is a press cutting from the time about the match and it's purpose.

[AMMS 27]

Like I said, I admit to being premature but I think caution is justified given the previous from the people involved.

Devine may be an authoritative figure in some people's eyes; in mine he's a joke. Spiers may also be a broadsheet journalist but his credibility is non-existent. Why even invite them onto the programme? Or did they propose the subject?

As a subscriber to the BBC (and as a listener to Radio Scotland as well actually), I expect better for my money; even if the content can't be judged fairly as yet.

Tom Devine is not neutral and neither is Spiers. Right away, that compromises the success of the show so I'm surprised any producer would willingly use such people unless they fancy a bit of cheap controversy themselves.

See this is interesting Frankie, this is where our various realities diverge. To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. Devine is a Celtic fan, Speirs claims to be (have been) a Rangers fan. Both of their 'day jobs' do give them added credibility in the eyes of someone with only a vague interest in football too. To someone outside of the Old Firm bubble they look authoritive and balanced. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

Now we know different, certainly where Speirs is concerned, but to expect everyone to know that is hopeful in the extreme.

We've discussed this before on other threads that looked like they are about other subjects; but they are connected. Speirs is probably the only mainstream broadsheet journalist willing to publicly say he is/was a Rangers fan, as such he's the go-to-guy when a voxpop like this is required. We find that laughable but it is what it is. The bigger question in all this is why Speirs is the only one?

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible.

Let's stop and examine this one for a moment.

Ask ourselves - why would this be?

Could it be that "your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner" is in all probability an Earl Haig?

Not in my experience, but I don't know them all. As I said up thread it would be a mistake if we mistook ignorance for bias. Not everyone has the in-depth knowledge or interest in football that many on boards like this do. I'd say most radio and TV programme commissioners fall into that category, even in a football obsessed city like Glasgow.

I've not heard the programme yet but judging from the comments on here it doesn't seem to have been as inaccurate as some feared.

OK let me see if i am getting this correct.

You're saying that a large proportion of programme commissioners are oblivious to the goings on in the peculiar world of Glasgow Politics and Football....is that correct?

So we have a commissioner putting together a programme on the Old Firm who knows nothing about the subject or the politics involved in putting together such a show.

They then need to find resource material and presenters/producers to put said show together.

So who are they going to ask on the show if they don't know who is who and what their backgrounds are?

Or are they taking advice from other members of staff in seniority who know fine well who is who and what they are?

Commissioners don't put together shows, they have show ideas pitched to them, then they say aye or nae. It's a bit more involved than that but that's basically it. A producer having been given a commission will then put the show together. That person will decide the content, presenters and contributors. The producer may be freelance, an independent production company or a BBC employee. The outline of the show will have been put forward at the start, presenters, length, number of programmes and an outline of the content but the actual content won't be known until the programme is finished. The programme will be vetted before broadcast to check for legal inaccuracies or slanders but beyond that they will go with what the producer has submitted.

In my experience BBC programme commissioners are relatively well informed on many subjects, politics certainly, but sport in general no, that would be left to the sports department. The outline of this shows presenters would have sailed through, Devine is a History professor at Edinburgh Uni, Speirs a sports writer for the Times and STV, no one would question those credentials. Even if the commissioner knew that most people on Rangers Media and Follow Follow think they are a pair of cunts they would take the view that we are in the minority. They'd probably be right too.

[Adoniram 1,919]

Like I said, I admit to being premature but I think caution is justified given the previous from the people involved.

Devine may be an authoritative figure in some people's eyes; in mine he's a joke. Spiers may also be a broadsheet journalist but his credibility is non-existent. Why even invite them onto the programme? Or did they propose the subject?

As a subscriber to the BBC (and as a listener to Radio Scotland as well actually), I expect better for my money; even if the content can't be judged fairly as yet.

Tom Devine is not neutral and neither is Spiers. Right away, that compromises the success of the show so I'm surprised any producer would willingly use such people unless they fancy a bit of cheap controversy themselves.

See this is interesting Frankie, this is where our various realities diverge. To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible. Devine is a Celtic fan, Speirs claims to be (have been) a Rangers fan. Both of their 'day jobs' do give them added credibility in the eyes of someone with only a vague interest in football too. To someone outside of the Old Firm bubble they look authoritive and balanced. It isn't bias it's ignorance.

Now we know different, certainly where Speirs is concerned, but to expect everyone to know that is hopeful in the extreme.

We've discussed this before on other threads that looked like they are about other subjects; but they are connected. Speirs is probably the only mainstream broadsheet journalist willing to publicly say he is/was a Rangers fan, as such he's the go-to-guy when a voxpop like this is required. We find that laughable but it is what it is. The bigger question in all this is why Speirs is the only one?

To your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner Devine and Spiers in particular would look eminently credible.

Let's stop and examine this one for a moment.

Ask ourselves - why would this be?

Could it be that "your average Radio Scotland daytime programme commissioner" is in all probability an Earl Haig?

Not in my experience, but I don't know them all. As I said up thread it would be a mistake if we mistook ignorance for bias. Not everyone has the in-depth knowledge or interest in football that many on boards like this do. I'd say most radio and TV programme commissioners fall into that category, even in a football obsessed city like Glasgow.

I've not heard the programme yet but judging from the comments on here it doesn't seem to have been as inaccurate as some feared.

OK let me see if i am getting this correct.

You're saying that a large proportion of programme commissioners are oblivious to the goings on in the peculiar world of Glasgow Politics and Football....is that correct?

So we have a commissioner putting together a programme on the Old Firm who knows nothing about the subject or the politics involved in putting together such a show.

They then need to find resource material and presenters/producers to put said show together.

So who are they going to ask on the show if they don't know who is who and what their backgrounds are?

Or are they taking advice from other members of staff in seniority who know fine well who is who and what they are?

Commissioners don't put together shows, they have show ideas pitched to them, then they say aye or nae. It's a bit more involved than that but that's basically it. A producer having been given a commission will then put the show together. That person will decide the content, presenters and contributors. The producer may be freelance, an independent production company or a BBC employee. The outline of the show will have been put forward at the start, presenters, length, number of programmes and an outline of the content but the actual content won't be known until the programme is finished. The programme will be vetted before broadcast to check for legal inaccuracies or slanders but beyond that they will go with what the producer has submitted.

In my experience BBC programme commissioners are relatively well informed on many subjects, politics certainly, but sport in general no, that would be left to the sports department. The outline of this shows presenters would have sailed through, Devine is a History professor at Edinburgh Uni, Speirs a sports writer for the Times and STV, no one would question those credentials. Even if the commissioner knew that most people on Rangers Media and Follow Follow think they are a pair of cunts they would take the view that we are in the minority. They'd probably be right too.

A producer having been given a commission will then put the show together. That person will decide the content, presenters and contributors.

I think that pretty much contradicts your whole argument does it not?

[AMMS 27]

Adoniram, I wasn't aware I was making an argument.

My contribution to this thread was initially to suggest we listen to the show before damning it and then further to explain why (in my opinion) people like Devine and Speirs would be invited to present them. I'm not condoning it. I then replied to Canadainbacon's claim that BBC programme commissioners are all 'Earl Haigs' and gave you a very brief guide to what a programme commissioner does because you didn't seem to know.

The only post close to an argument I've made is when I challenged you on your 'Be fair with people like Devine and Spiers....i truly despair at some Rangers fans these days' which you chose to ignore because no one actually was.

[KingKai 439]

Yes I believe I read that Briton....possibly and I say possibly because there are a number of writings I have read around this subject and I may be getting confused in my old age - But I think it was Bill Murray's "The Old Firm & Sectarianism"

Could be that one. I seem to recall the evidence was that there is a press cutting from the time about the match and it's purpose.

Its also in The Gallant Pioneers.