Rangers release statement regarding singing at Berwick

[The Dude 20,026]

Comparing songs to that maniac

Whats the difference? If a song cant be offensive how can ANY spoken phrase be offensive?

[Mr Soprano 13,964]

Whats the difference? If a song cant be offensive how can ANY spoken phrase be offensive?

Stop being melodramatic, comparing the kind of stuff you've said to the stuff that was sang is wild.

[r13 47]

Protesting against the pope isn't illegal. doing it in a footballing environment however with the sole purpose of offending a religions followers is. How is it you don't get that? and why on earth do you feel a football ground is the right environment for raising the Vaticans many flaws?

As I said in tHe last line of my post, I don't think iit has a place at Rangers games.

However there is a bigger issue in our society where a minority set the political agenda!

[The Dude 20,026]

Stop being melodramatic, comparing the kind of stuff you've said to the stuff that was sang is wild.

I'm not being melodramatic. Obtuse maybe. But not melodramatic. You have said

If anyone is genuinely offended by a song then either get a fucking grip or don't go to football matches.

so I'm curious to find out how a song cant be offensive but other forms of verbal communication can?

[Mr Soprano 13,964]

I'm not being melodramatic. Obtuse maybe. But not melodramatic. You have said

so I'm curious to find out how a song cant be offensive but other forms of verbal communication can?

The 'people' claiming it's offensive aren't actually offended imo, think that's more the point I'm trying to put across.

[Bertent 2,081]

Whats the difference? If a song cant be offensive how can ANY spoken phrase be offensive?

So how can Tim Minchin and Jim Jeffries acts be legal but songs not?

But I suggest you answered your own question there,

[The Dude 20,026]

The 'people' claiming it's offensive aren't actually offended imo, think that's more the point I'm trying to put across.

Since you seem unwilling to answer the question I'll ask it once more.

If a song cannot be offensive, can any other form of verbal communication be offensive? If so, why?

It's not difficult.

[The Dude 20,026]

So how can Tim Minchin and Jim Jeffries acts be legal but songs not?

But I suggest you answered your own question there,

Because they are not covered under the relevant piece of legislation.

[scarkev 3,540]

Whats the difference? If a song cant be offensive how can ANY spoken phrase be offensive?

Do you find the word ni#*er offensive? Because if I or you used that in spoken phrase it is racist (see Paul Elliot) but in a song it is acceptable!

I accept that is a poor example but I don't think there is a comparison to be made between a preacher who actively advocates the death of the western world over the singing of songs that do not nesecarily represent the hatred that some perceive them to represent...alot of people rightly or wrongly see it as harmless banter and I bet you'll find alot of people singing these songs probably won't associate the words with hate or bigotry.

[The Dude 20,026]

Do you find the word ni#*er offensive? Because if I or you used that in spoken phrase it is racist (see Paul Elliot) but in a song it is acceptable!

I accept that is a poor example but I don't think there is a comparison to be made between a preacher who actively advocates the death of the western world over the singing of songs that do not nesecarily represent the hatred that some perceive them to represent...alot of people rightly or wrongly see it as harmless banter and I bet you'll find alot of people singing these songs probably won't associate the words with hate or bigotry.

It doesn't matter if the people singing don't associate it with bigotry or hatred. The Law does. As long as that is the case anyone singing these songs, and putting the club in danger of sanctions, runs the risk of being arrested.

[Bertent 2,081]

Because they are not covered under the relevant piece of legislation.

So the legislation is discriminatory

[Tiger Shaw 30,470]

Since you seem unwilling to answer the question I'll ask it once more.

If a song cannot be offensive, can any other form of verbal communication be offensive? If so, why?

It's not difficult.

You're right The Dude it is not difficult , some Jihad terrorist headcase preaching to like minded headcases to go out and blow innocent people to bits, then these people going out and actively attempting to and in some case carry out these acts of murder is incomparable to a few lads signing 'inappropriate' songs at a football ground ... only a fool or somebody playing to an agenda would even think of comparing the two.

[The Dude 20,026]

So the legislation is discriminatory

No.

[The Dude 20,026]

You're right The Dude it is not difficult , some Jihad terrorist headcase preaching to like minded headcases to go out and blow innocent people to bits, then these people going out and actively attempting to and in some case carry out these acts of murder is incomparable to a few lads signing 'inappropriate' songs at a football ground ... only a fool or somebody playing to an agenda would even think of comparing the two.

but as has been stated by many others 'it's only words, how can they be offensive?' Thier argument, not mine.

Personally I feel songs, poems, hai-kus, phrases and vitriol filled rants can all be offensive depending on the content.

I have an agenda. I will quite happily admit to that.

[scarkev 3,540]

but as has been stated by many others 'it's only words, how can they be offensive?' Thier argument, not mine.

Personally I feel songs, poems, hai-kus, phrases and vitriol filled rants can all be offensive depending on the content.

I have an agenda. I will quite happily admit to that.

And what is that agenda?

Different people and groups will find all of the above offensive in different contexts...the point is as you said earlier if the law has decided certain songs are illegal and individuals choose to sing them anyway why are the club culpable? Why is the club the one who are being attacked and why is it all being blown out of proportion?

I personally don't find anything sung yesterday offensive albeit due to my job I would be cautious about singing certain songs....others don't have that restraint but that doesn't mean they are doing it to be offensive or express hate and as I say this whole thing has been blown out of proportion!

[The Dude 20,026]

And what is that agenda?

Different people and groups will find all of the above offensive in different contexts...the point is as you said earlier if the law has decided certain songs are illegal and individuals choose to sing them anyway why are the club culpable? Why is the club the one who are being attacked and why is it all being blown out of proportion?

I personally don't find anything sung yesterday offensive albeit due to my job I would be cautious about singing certain songs....others don't have that restraint but that doesn't mean they are doing it to be offensive or express hate and as I say this whole thing has been blown out of proportion!

To stop seeing the clubs name dragged through the mud by the actions of a small number of idiots that can't contain themselves or their obsession with all things Roman Catholic. The club are culpable as we, as supporters, are representing the club. The individuals are also culpable to a much greater degree than the club and this is reflected in the lack of punishments meted out to the club as opposed to the number of convictions for religiously aggravated crimes that took place at matches.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

[TravelingWilBEARy 4,319]

I can't believe people have the energy to debate this.

[AlBear. 8,499]

It's good to see my human Rights, of being able to sing songs about paedophiles and terrorists at a football match are being protected. God bless these bastions of righteous indignation, they will go down in the annals of human history with the likes of Rosa Parks etc for they way they stand up to persecution.

It's very simple really.

The club have had to apologise for these actions. Stop it.

The club do not want us to continue those types of songs. Stop it.

The club needs us to stop it for the benefit of our future business interests. Stop it.

Think about what you'll be giving up by stopping these references in our songs, then think about what we very nearly lost last summer. What's more important?

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

Fans were superb!

[barcelonabear 23]

Fans were superb!

You're right the FANS were superb and have been all season. Unfortunately these morons who go to games and sing songs that only bring disrepute to our club spoil it for the actual FANS of our club.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

You're right the FANS were superb and have been all season. Unfortunately these morons who go to games and sing songs that only bring disrepute to our club spoil it for the actual FANS of our club.

Define an "actual fan" for me.

[The Dude 20,026]

Define an "actual fan" for me.

I know what doesn't constitute an 'actual fan'. People who go against the wishes of the club.

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

I know what doesn't constitute an 'actual fan'. People who go against the wishes of the club.

Every Rangers fan at Hampden earlier this season must not be a real Rangers fan then.

All 30k of us...

[barcelonabear 23]

I know what doesn't constitute an 'actual fan'. People who go against the wishes of the club.

Couldn't have said it better. An actual fan of the club supports the club without the need to bring their political and religious bias and try to attach it to the club, without tarnishing the name of the club, and as said above without thinking they are bigger than the club by going against the clubs wishes.