Jump to content

J'accuse - an open letter to Thompson and Spiers


quinty
 Share

Recommended Posts

REVISED VERSION

Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Hypocrisy, it is important to note, is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. The great diarist and social commentator Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy"

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself"

What Johnson is saying here is that it is important not to accuse someone of hypocrisy, just because he advocates a course of action that he doesn't carry out personally. For example, it is perfectly honourable to criticise genocide without having to physically fight against it. What would be hypocrisy would be to criticise genocide whilst carrying it out yourself. What would be hypocrisy would be accusing others of willful negligence whilst whilst willfully neglecting similar injustices or practices. What would be hypocrisy would be to accuse someone of moral impropriety whilst displaying the same moral impropriety impropriety yourself.

So there is a distinction and a careful line to be drawn, and judgement to be made, before you accuse someone of hypocrisy. There are those who are genuinely driven to fight against repression, unfairness and injustice. They make a stand, they shine a light on the evil. Mandela, Martin Luther King, John Knox shone the light, they championed the cause without fear or favour, without bias. When the time came, when they were tested, they maintained their stand, were consistent in their views and proclamations.

There are others; those who crave the limelight, who wish to be seen as rebels, freedom fighters, of championing a cause. They, however, lack the moral fibre, the essential decency, the courage of the Mandela's, King's and Knox. They advocate a moral code that they are unwilling to live by themselves. They are suffering from a form of self delusion, what they desire is the cloak of respectability without the weight of responsibility. In short; 'Do as I say, not as I Do'.

Carl Jung (allegedly, not a bad centre half in his day) notes:

'Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbors under the hypocritical cloak of Christian love or the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power.

It is under all circumstances an advantage to be in full possession of one's personality, otherwise the repressed elements will only crop up as a hindrance elsewhere, not just at some unimportant point, but at the very spot where we are most sensitive. If people can be educated to see the shadow-side of their nature clearly, it may be hoped that they will also learn to understand and love their fellow men better.

A little less hypocrisy and a little more self-knowledge can only have good results in respect for our neighbor; for we are all too prone to transfer to our fellows the injustice and violence we inflict upon our own natures.'

This is a warning from Jung; be careful when you claim the moral high ground, be careful when you shine the light, be careful, because someday, probably at a time when it is most inconvenient to you, the same light will be shone upon you, and if you fail to act, well, you're a hypocrite.

Sound familiar Alex Thompson? (Alex Thompson’s view 24 Mar 2012)

'Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.

First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.

Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.

I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.

What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.

Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.

Only in Glasgow.

So something’s up. Something’s different.

Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.

Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.

They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring."

Sound familiar Graham Spiers?

I think these trust funds look morally pretty dubious, and I say this in the full knowledge that the First Tier Tribunal has just found in favour of Rangers and the Murray Group.

Indeed, I’ve called EBTs “a form of cheating” and, while the context of that comment was specific, I can’t take the remark back.

EBTS benefited (in the case of Rangers) both the club and their employees, and were to the severe detriment of the Revenue.

In Rangers’ case, HMRC believed that upwards of £45m was due to them, and thus made their claim against the Ibrox club stretching back over 10 years.

It is little wonder that – the Rangers case being incidental to this - the UK government last year tightened up EBTs in what it called an “anti-avoidance” move.

We all know the buzzwords by now. There is “tax avoidance” which, during the Rangers saga, fell within the law (just), and there is “tax evasion” which, in the case of Rangers, HMRC felt had been the issue.

After an agonising period of investigation, and examining scores of witnesses, the tribunal finally announced by a majority verdict that the Murray Group and Rangers were in the clear.

There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.

Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.

Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.’

Alex, you’ve assured me, one the RFC bears, that if you were investigating Celtic FC you would give them ‘just the same treatment’. Well, there is a story out there, you’ve heard it, we’ve all heard it, but it’s not being reported on. Why not have a dig around? Why not have a wee explore? Something about asking questions about the activities of CFC is affecting the Glasgow media. They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and it appears that every single one is failing to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring. Any idea why Alex?

Perhaps Graham can help you Alex? Graham, he of the finely tuned moral compass. We know that there’s two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. We know that, legally nothing has been proved….yet. But morally, does he take a dissenting stance? What’s Graham’s views on tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use providing for the people of Glasgow, or alleviating the pressure on the hard pressed NHS, than lining the pockets of footballers and in this case one club in particular? Would he consider that 'a form of cheating'?

You see the thing is Alex and Graham, the light is now shining on you. I know that the timing is a little inconvenient. But as Jung would say:

“A little less hypocrisy and a little more self-knowledge can only have good results…..”

Link to post
Share on other sites

REVISED VERSION

Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Hypocrisy, it is important to note, is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. The great diarist and social commentator Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy"

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself"

What Johnson is saying here is that it is important not to accuse someone of hypocrisy, just because he advocates a course of action that he doesn't carry out personally. For example, it is perfectly honourable to criticise genocide without having to physically fight against it. What would be hypocrisy would be to criticise genocide whilst carrying it out yourself. What would be hypocrisy would be accusing others of willful negligence whilst whilst willfully neglecting similar injustices or practices. What would be hypocrisy would be to accuse someone of moral impropriety whilst displaying the same moral impropriety impropriety yourself.

So there is a distinction and a careful line to be drawn, and judgement to be made, before you accuse someone of hypocrisy. There are those who are genuinely driven to fight against repression, unfairness and injustice. They make a stand, they shine a light on the evil. Mandela, Martin Luther King, John Knox shone the light, they championed the cause without fear or favour, without bias. When the time came, when they were tested, they maintained their stand, were consistent in their views and proclamations.

There are others; those who crave the limelight, who wish to be seen as rebels, freedom fighters, of championing a cause. They, however, lack the moral fibre, the essential decency, the courage of the Mandela's, King's and Knox. They advocate a moral code that they are unwilling to live by themselves. They are suffering from a form of self delusion, what they desire is the cloak of respectability without the weight of responsibility. In short; 'Do as I say, not as I Do'.

Carl Jung (allegedly, not a bad centre half in his day) notes:

'Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbors under the hypocritical cloak of Christian love or the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power.

It is under all circumstances an advantage to be in full possession of one's personality, otherwise the repressed elements will only crop up as a hindrance elsewhere, not just at some unimportant point, but at the very spot where we are most sensitive. If people can be educated to see the shadow-side of their nature clearly, it may be hoped that they will also learn to understand and love their fellow men better.

A little less hypocrisy and a little more self-knowledge can only have good results in respect for our neighbor; for we are all too prone to transfer to our fellows the injustice and violence we inflict upon our own natures.'

This is a warning from Jung; be careful when you claim the moral high ground, be careful when you shine the light, be careful, because someday, probably at a time when it is most inconvenient to you, the same light will be shone upon you, and if you fail to act, well, you're a hypocrite.

Sound familiar Alex Thompson? (Alex Thompson’s view 24 Mar 2012)

'Right – let me make two things absolutely clear at the outset.

First, I am writing this imagining that one or two people outside Glasgow use the internet, so I might make some observations familiar to Clydeside surfers.

Second, this arises from my continuing investigation into Rangers which is still in early stages. That is to say, I am not investigating Celtic. If I were, rest assured RFC Bears – they’d get just the same treatment.

I’d expected the paranoia, insults, spin etc – hey – this is “fitba” after all and I welcome it good, bad and ugly, from fans within and without Glasgow. Indeed I’ve gone out and asked for it.

What I didn’t expect were the insults (and in at least one case a direct physical threat) not from fans but from Scottish journalists.

Sarajevo, Mogadishu, Kabul, Islamabad, Tripoli, Baghdad…I could bore you with more – in none of these places have I ever got this interesting reaction from local journalists.

Only in Glasgow.

So something’s up. Something’s different.

Something about asking questions about RFC clearly angers some in the Glasgow media in a way I’ve never seen in 25 years of global reporting.

Equally, a number of fine Glasgow journalists have been incredibly helpful, encouraging and agree there has been something deeply wrong for far too long in the culture of reporting RFC.

They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and every single one has encouraged me to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring."

Sound familiar Graham Spiers?

I think these trust funds look morally pretty dubious, and I say this in the full knowledge that the First Tier Tribunal has just found in favour of Rangers and the Murray Group.

Indeed, I’ve called EBTs “a form of cheating” and, while the context of that comment was specific, I can’t take the remark back.

EBTS benefited (in the case of Rangers) both the club and their employees, and were to the severe detriment of the Revenue.

In Rangers’ case, HMRC believed that upwards of £45m was due to them, and thus made their claim against the Ibrox club stretching back over 10 years.

It is little wonder that – the Rangers case being incidental to this - the UK government last year tightened up EBTs in what it called an “anti-avoidance” move.

We all know the buzzwords by now. There is “tax avoidance” which, during the Rangers saga, fell within the law (just), and there is “tax evasion” which, in the case of Rangers, HMRC felt had been the issue.

After an agonising period of investigation, and examining scores of witnesses, the tribunal finally announced by a majority verdict that the Murray Group and Rangers were in the clear.

There are two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. First, the legal argument, and second, the moral argument.

Legally, Rangers stand vindicated. There should be no dubiety cast on this (though some are trying). HMRC may well announce they will appeal the Rangers decision but, as things stand, within the legal framework, the club under Sir David Murray did nothing wrong.

Morally? Quite a few take a more dissenting stance. The EBTs system allowed for tax-avoidance on a grand scale – tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use than lining the pockets of footballers and football clubs.’

Alex, you’ve assured me, one the RFC bears, that if you were investigating Celtic FC you would give them ‘just the same treatment’. Well, there is a story out there, you’ve heard it, we’ve all heard it, but it’s not being reported on. Why not have a dig around? Why not have a wee explore? Something about asking questions about the activities of CFC is affecting the Glasgow media. They know who they are, male and female, working in papers, radio and broadcasting and it appears that every single one is failing to dig around in an area many cannot, will not or are prevented from, exploring. Any idea why Alex?

Perhaps Graham can help you Alex? Graham, he of the finely tuned moral compass. We know that there’s two distinct issues for legitimate debate here. We know that, legally nothing has been proved….yet. But morally, does he take a dissenting stance? What’s Graham’s views on tens of millions of pounds – which might have been put to far greater use providing for the people of Glasgow, or alleviating the pressure on the hard pressed NHS, than lining the pockets of footballers and in this case one club in particular? Would he consider that 'a form of cheating'?

You see the thing is Alex and Graham, the light is now shining on you. I know that the timing is a little inconvenient. But as Jung would say:

“A little less hypocrisy and a little more self-knowledge can only have good results…..”

I think the revision makes the conclusion much clearer, and thus the article is much stronger.

To further the debate, ever so slightly, if Spiers thinks that EBTs are a form of cheating, is he willing to say that the other lot's EBT, which is admitted by them, is also a form of cheating? It may be smaller example, but wrong is wrong, regardless of degree and it is a direct comparison, which leaves him absolutely no room to wriggle out of his hypocrisy without labelling them similarly. First time offenders do not get away with their first murder, with guilt reserved for serial murderers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the revision makes the conclusion much clearer, and thus the article is much stronger.

To further the debate, ever so slightly, if Spiers thinks that EBTs are a form of cheating, is he willing to say that the other lot's EBT, which is admitted by them, is also a form of cheating? It may be smaller example, but wrong is wrong, regardless of degree and it is a direct comparison, which leaves him absolutely no room to wriggle out of his hypocrisy without labelling them similarly. First time offenders do not get away with their first murder, with guilt reserved for serial murderers.

Thanks - grateful for advice. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiers is an utter hypocrite who is told what to say by Liewell and co. Strange that he says feck all about the shenanigans at Hearts and them over the last few years. Hearts took players on loan from FBK Kaunas and did not pay any tax on these players for 3 years, Hmrc then hit the club with a winding up order non payment of PAYE and Hearts and agree to pay the money at a later date knowing full well they were heading into administration a few months later and would not have to pay a penny back. Not even a word about it in the mHedia or the £30,000,000 in illegal debt for equity deals that mad vlad used in his time at the club. And lets not even start on "Them" and the film companies, image right companies, dodgy Co-op loans, dodgy land deals with GCC and EBT's that were hidden from the SFA and SPL. As long as it's not Rangers it's okay in Spiers and the mHedias eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks D'art, I'll see how it goes down on here before approaching the hallowed halls of TRS.

I'll be honest q - to me thats on a par with the stuff on there. (tu)

Although Ive done them before I tend to stay away from the academic type essays (reminds me too much of my studying days !) but everyone should write with a style they are comfortable with.

I normally draft in 5 paragraph essay format and dont deviate much from there - except for when I write for WATP magazine which requires an article length of about 900 words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thomson is a hater of his own country and will do anything to damage any institution which he sees as "establishment" so the army,royal family or anything british is a target for his venom and as far as spiers is concerned after declaring himself as an ex bluenose he now will do anything to prove his left wing right on credentials by attacking us at every turn,he reminds of every guardian,morning star reading tosspot teacher i had at secondary school who turned every lesson into a lefty republican fest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...