Radio programme on rangers

[TheWholeStruth 7]

In summary the format was GS stating his position and getting our reaction.

BB,

Can you elaborate on this statement.

His position on what?

He knows he is diametrically opposed to us(the club and support) on many issues especially bigotry and sectarianism so he started with them.

As you stated earlier, I'll look forward to reading your detailed post on tonight's meeting tomorrow.

Thanks.

[MikeBlue 136]

In summary the format was GS stating his position and getting our reaction.

BB,

Can you elaborate on this statement.

His position on what?

He knows he is diametrically opposed to us(the club and support) on many issues especially bigotry and sectarianism so he started with them.

As you stated earlier, I'll look forward to reading your detailed post on tonight's meeting tomorrow.

Thanks.

If he is "diametrically opposed" to the club on the issue of sectarianism that would mean he is in favour of it

[slimjim1690 4,534]

Pretty clear from the topics covered and who will be interviewed in the follow-up programme it's going to be about 'Scotland's secret shame' and the cultural differences between Rangers and Celtic supporters.

It's now all up to the editing team of the BBC whether or not it's a hatchet job.

Bit off topic here, but I just happened to tune into a talk radio show here in Toronto driving home about a week ago,I just caught the tale end of the conversation. The panel were discussing something about Briton being in Afganistan, but what caught my attention was a comment by one of the panelists, when he said "this was reported as true by the BBC" and one of the other members said [sarcatically] "well that must be true, we all know that they are the bastion of truth".

The thing that got me was all the other three panelists agreed with him, a couple openly laughing.

I left Glasgow in '95 and I allways though the BBC were pretty even handed, but reading comments on this forum over the last year makes me wonder? has this really changed, and when did it change? or was I just naive.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Pretty clear from the topics covered and who will be interviewed in the follow-up programme it's going to be about 'Scotland's secret shame' and the cultural differences between Rangers and Celtic supporters.

It's now all up to the editing team of the BBC whether or not it's a hatchet job.

Bit off topic here, but I just happened to tune into a talk radio show here in Toronto driving home about a week ago,I just caught the tale end of the conversation. The panel were discussing something about Briton being in Afganistan, but what caught my attention was a comment by one of the panelists, when he said "this was reported as true by the BBC" and one of the other members said [sarcatically] "well that must be true, we all know that they are the bastion of truth".

The thing that got me was all the other three panelists agreed with him, a couple openly laughing.

I left Glasgow in '95 and I allways though the BBC were pretty even handed, but reading comments on this forum over the last year makes me wonder? has this really changed, and when did it change? or was I just naive.

I'd say it was more BBC Scotland to be honest.

The only thing that gives me hope is that it's a London based Radio 4 production team. However, if Spiers is involved, you suspect it's a timmy hatchet job with London based tim who's worked his way in.

The good thing is that the timing makes it get an even smaller audience than Radio 4 usually gets.

[TheWholeStruth 7]

Pretty clear from the topics covered and who will be interviewed in the follow-up programme it's going to be about 'Scotland's secret shame' and the cultural differences between Rangers and Celtic supporters.

It's now all up to the editing team of the BBC whether or not it's a hatchet job.

Bit off topic here, but I just happened to tune into a talk radio show here in Toronto driving home about a week ago,I just caught the tale end of the conversation. The panel were discussing something about Briton being in Afganistan, but what caught my attention was a comment by one of the panelists, when he said "this was reported as true by the BBC" and one of the other members said [sarcatically] "well that must be true, we all know that they are the bastion of truth".

The thing that got me was all the other three panelists agreed with him, a couple openly laughing.

I left Glasgow in '95 and I allways though the BBC were pretty even handed, but reading comments on this forum over the last year makes me wonder? has this really changed, and when did it change? or was I just naive.

Off topic but I'll quickly say my piece and then the thread can get back on track. The Thursday following 9/11 the BBC1 programme Question Time aired a special covering the atrocity. At the time, there was a very public outpouring of shock and sympathy for the people of New York from the vast majority. You wouldn't have thought that though it you watched the programme. There was an American diplomat (I forget his name) on the panel, who couldn't believe what he was hearing from the crowd. The audience had clearly been hand picked - shameful, in no way was it a fair representation of public feeling.

[BLUE CYCLOPS 26]

Off topic but I'll quickly say my piece and then the thread can get back on track. The Thursday following 9/11 the BBC1 programme Question Time aired a special covering the atrocity. At the time, there was a very public outpouring of shock and sympathy for the people of New York from the vast majority. You wouldn't have thought that though it you watched the programme. There was an American diplomat (I forget his name) on the panel, who couldn't believe what he was hearing from the crowd. The audience had clearly been hand picked - shameful, in no way was it a fair representation of public feeling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,ll reply to your piece and then get off.

I think I remember that programme. If its the same one, wasn,t the American in shock, almost in tears at some of the bitterness directed at him?

I think the reason for the attacks on the diplomat was because, 4 days before 9/11, the Mayor of NY, Guilliana(spelling) had been at an IRA fund raising dinner. Having funded and subsidised the IRA for years, America then expected sympathy when they had been attacked by terrorists. I don,t know if that was the programme makers intent, but the diplomat got a bad reception from the audience.

[samNewton 0]

I,ll reply to your piece and then get off.

I think I remember that programme. If its the same one, wasn,t the American in shock, almost in tears at some of the bitterness directed at him?

I think the reason for the attacks on the diplomat was because, 4 days before 9/11, the Mayor of NY, Guilliana(spelling) had been at an IRA fund raising dinner. Having funded and subsidised the IRA for years, America then expected sympathy when they had been attacked by terrorists. I don,t know if that was the programme makers intent, but the diplomat got a bad reception from the audience.

I think it had rather more to do with a large number of the audience being anti-American and/or Muslim.

The notion that the BBC-selected audience reacted in the way it did because of innate hostility to the IRA is wishful-thinking at its best.

[Frankie 505]

I think most of us can guess how this will be spun by Spiers - although it will be interesting to see how the BBC network production team deal with the content.

It's quite simple really - as shown by Spiers' own comments of recent times - and these will be his main conclusions of which I doubt the BBC network team will have the research to argue otherwise (even if BB did his best to give our opinion).

1. Rangers have a worse sectarianism/intolerance problem than Celtic.

2. Rangers have no right to their Protestant, Unionist background while Celtic's Catholic, Pro-Irish/Republican background is symbolic and worthy.

3. Rangers have a plethora of unacceptable sectarian and racist songs while Celtic's chants about the IRA/h*** are political banter.

I also have a few other questions regarding the event:

1. Is Spiers the sole presenter/narrator of the show? On what basis was he selected?

2. Why did the BBC make no effort to contact fans bodies or external websites for their opinions?

3. What other Rangers fans were present?

4. How were the Celtic fans picked?

5. Are the clubs taking part?

6. What efforts were made to discuss the wider-ranging social contribution to the problem of intolerance and what solutions were offered by the presenter?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I feel sorry for Balloch Bear and dissapointed at the levels of Paranoia shown on this thread and also the attacks on his motives and integrity.

Balloch Bear is as entitled as anyone to give his views on what it means to be a Rangers supporter - if the BBC had walked into my pub and asked me the same questions I would have answered and been entitled to answer. But BB has taken a lot of grief for attending and also the questions raised on what gives him the right to attend are shameful.

We do not know what brief Spiers has, nor the production team behind the program, but as a Journalist Spiers also has the right to comment on and investigate the issues of the day, he may even well put a slant on it - but at least that then puts the debate into the public forum (oh, and if you believe in free speech he also has the right to comment as he sees fit). If what he writes is blasphemous (sp) then he can be challenged and sued, but often he will write what many people think - we may vehmenently disagree with it but thats the problem with free speech he is allowed to hold that view point. He may also have other motives - like genuinely trying to understand our point of view. We shall wait and see.

[joeli 27]

I feel sorry for Balloch Bear and dissapointed at the levels of Paranoia shown on this thread and also the attacks on his motives and integrity.

Balloch Bear is as entitled as anyone to give his views on what it means to be a Rangers supporter - if the BBC had walked into my pub and asked me the same questions I would have answered and been entitled to answer. But BB has taken a lot of grief for attending and also the questions raised on what gives him the right to attend are shameful.

We do not know what brief Spiers has, nor the production team behind the program, but as a Journalist Spiers also has the right to comment on and investigate the issues of the day, he may even well put a slant on it - but at least that then puts the debate into the public forum (oh, and if you believe in free speech he also has the right to comment as he sees fit). If what he writes is blasphemous (sp) then he can be challenged and sued, but often he will write what many people think - we may vehmenently disagree with it but thats the problem with free speech he is allowed to hold that view point. He may also have other motives - like genuinely trying to understand our point of view. We shall wait and see.

Perhaps it is due to the fact that no one knows BB, yet he will be presented as a representative of the Rangers Support. Who else was present last night, why was the OP chosen to take part, is BB media savvy or a publicity seeker.

[samNewton 0]

I feel sorry for Balloch Bear and dissapointed at the levels of Paranoia shown on this thread and also the attacks on his motives and integrity.

Balloch Bear is as entitled as anyone to give his views on what it means to be a Rangers supporter - if the BBC had walked into my pub and asked me the same questions I would have answered and been entitled to answer. But BB has taken a lot of grief for attending and also the questions raised on what gives him the right to attend are shameful.

We do not know what brief Spiers has, nor the production team behind the program, but as a Journalist Spiers also has the right to comment on and investigate the issues of the day, he may even well put a slant on it - but at least that then puts the debate into the public forum (oh, and if you believe in free speech he also has the right to comment as he sees fit). If what he writes is blasphemous (sp) then he can be challenged and sued, but often he will write what many people think - we may vehmenently disagree with it but thats the problem with free speech he is allowed to hold that view point. He may also have other motives - like genuinely trying to understand our point of view. We shall wait and see.

Do you know 'Balloch Bear'?

The issues of who he is, why he seems to be obsessed with Graham Spiers and just what he is playing at are very much open to conjecture.

Until these are answered, then what 'right' does he have to speak on behalf of anyone?

I certainly believe in 'free speech', but what kind of freedom does the Rangers support have in this respect? In terms of the broader debate surrounding sectarianism, our views are effectively censored.

I will not accept a situation in which a chancer like Spiers dictates the conditions in which Gers fans are supposedly allowed their token amount of 'free speech'.

After the match against Villarreal, Spiers invited a young Rangers fan to speak to him. The supporter gave his opinions on a variety of topics. He was certainly critical of some of his own supporters, but he was also very critical of media coverage which he said was biased.

When the article emerged, Spiers had censored all comments by the young guy which were critical of the media. He cited 'space restrictions'.

Of course, Spiers was only interested all along in performing yet another hatchet-job on the Gers support and he exploited the young man's naivety in believing that his views would be fairly represented.

This is the type of character we are dealing with.

Only a fool would trust this man.

[Bluedell 14]

We do not know what brief Spiers has, nor the production team behind the program, but as a Journalist Spiers also has the right to comment on and investigate the issues of the day,

We DO know what brief Spiers has.

He always has the same brief.

[bluepeter 5,627]

I see Balloch Bear has rejoined us, so I'll be kind . I think we're going a bit far in the questioning of BB's motives, he has been on here several times to invite people to attend or to add points to the discussion.

Whether it was naive or not to meet Spiers in the first place, I guess only time will tell. I'm willing to give BB the benefit of the doubt, and assume his motives were good. I'll admit, though, that I'd have been more comfortable if people I "know" or at lest know the thoughts and abilities of, such as Bluedell and Frankie, were there. I hope it went well, and that BB has not been conned into taking part in a hatchet job by our favourite journalis.

[Frankie 505]

FWIW, I think BB's motives are entirely honest and positive.

I just don't agree with him in his opinion that this particular leopard will change it's spots. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong but Spiers has shown nothing but contempt and bias against our support for a long time now. That's why I reckon he's not worth working with.

That isn't 'paranoid' but clear fact when one takes a cursory look at his contribution across the media (radio, tv and in print).

Graham Spiers is a liar, a trouble-maker and a charlatan. He'll have to go a long, long way before he changes my mind on that.

[bluepeter 5,627]

FWIW, I think BB's motives are entirely honest and positive.

I just don't agree with him in his opinion that this particular leopard will change it's spots. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong but Spiers has shown nothing but contempt and bias against our support for a long time now. That's why I reckon he's not worth working with.

That isn't 'paranoid' but clear fact when one takes a cursory look at his contribution across the media (radio, tv and in print).

Graham Spiers is a liar, a trouble-maker and a charlatan. He'll have to go a long, long way before he changes my mind on that.

Yep, I completely understand and agree with your reasons for not attending. I think if the meeting had to take place, it would have benefited from your presence. Maybe BB handled it perfectly, and gave nothing for Spiers to misconstrue. I hope so, but have no idea about his abilities in these matters,

[BallochBear 1,613]

Morning all, thanks for the reams of support.

I've penned some more indicative comments on last night which you can all peruse and no doubt many of you will respond to, so please before ordering my knee capping be assured my intentions are honest and true, and I have no hiddeen agenda.

Firstly let me make it clear that in no way did we claim to be spokespeople for Rangers, Rangers supporters, or any supporters body, we are simply fans who support our club, and were invited to take part, and have opinions on how we are treated/perceived by the world outdoors.

TFS,

Discussed at length with GS being completely opposed to this song, we strongly defended our position stating it was a wind up aimed at plastic paddies, not at Celtic fans in general or catholics or indeed the Irish. Also said we respect their heritage as we do with other clubs but they alone continually throw it in others faces so they have in many ways orchestrated the reaction against them, used the example of Hibs, similar background but totally assimilated into Scotland In summary, asked why if they are so anti-British and they hate our country so much then why do they continue to live here. Also mentioned the contradiction of them being an Irish club when it suits them but remind everyone of being British in ‘67

Sectarianism

GS claims we have been very slow to act on this and Celtic are ahead of us We disagreed strongly and took the attitude that while they may have begun their process before us, in recent years we have done far more than them and we are now in fact ahead of where they are. Also discussed why there are other clubs with a far greater level of problem than us with particular mention of those that support murdering terrorist organisations, and in fact Rangers should be applauded for the work done recently and not be the whipping boys. Discussed the signing of MoJo, how SDM broke down the protestant only policy(if it ever really did exist), and how we were not fouded on religious grounds unlike some others.

Being Brittish

Made no apology for being a Scottish & British club, why should we be ashamed of our roots and Britishness, we are British and proud of it. We appear to be the only country where being the indigenous population is seen as bad.

The media

Suggested we get a very hard time from the media in general, asked why every single move we make or song we sing is analysed to death when others can sing about issues such as the Ibrox disaster, make fun of the less able bodied, support the PIRA etc. Also raised why the poppy fiasco went relatively uncovered and has since disappeared into the ether.

Irishness(excluding Ulster of course)

Discussed their love of Ireland and all things Irish, our contention was that they have played the green card to their own benefit for financial reasons and will continue to do so, allowing displays of the Tricolour and Irish music and tradition to take over the club.

Being a Bear/Rangers tradition

Discussed what being a bear meant, how important it is to so many, why the Rangers tradition was important and why it remains so, and why we should not be ashamed of it.

Posed the question why they can celebrate their heritage but we get slaughtered for supporting ours.

It’s really now down to the editing team to cut it how they see fit but there is a chance it may go out pretty much unedited, I will let you know as soon as I do.

I’ll talk with my fellow(Bluenose) contributors later today and if there is anything missed I can add it later.

Better get some work done now.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[Frankie 505]

Sounds like you did a decent job, BB.

What kind of response did Spiers give to this?

[BallochBear 1,613]

I think most of us can guess how this will be spun by Spiers - although it will be interesting to see how the BBC network production team deal with the content.

It's quite simple really - as shown by Spiers' own comments of recent times - and these will be his main conclusions of which I doubt the BBC network team will have the research to argue otherwise (even if BB did his best to give our opinion).

1. Rangers have a worse sectarianism/intolerance problem than Celtic.

2. Rangers have no right to their Protestant, Unionist background while Celtic's Catholic, Pro-Irish/Republican background is symbolic and worthy.

3. Rangers have a plethora of unacceptable sectarian and racist songs while Celtic's chants about the IRA/h*** are political banter.

I also have a few other questions regarding the event:

1. Is Spiers the sole presenter/narrator of the show? On what basis was he selected?

2. Why did the BBC make no effort to contact fans bodies or external websites for their opinions?

3. What other Rangers fans were present?

4. How were the Celtic fans picked?

5. Are the clubs taking part?

6. What efforts were made to discuss the wider-ranging social contribution to the problem of intolerance and what solutions were offered by the presenter?

Frankie,

I've answerd your points in red again.

1. Rangers have a worse sectarianism/intolerance problem than Celtic.

Indeed he does think that

2. Rangers have no right to their Protestant, Unionist background while Celtic's Catholic, Pro-Irish/Republican background is symbolic and worthy.

Not quite so strongly on this one but in general yes he does

3. Rangers have a plethora of unacceptable sectarian and racist songs while Celtic's chants about the IRA/h*** are political banter.

He is opposed to their PIRA/h** chants but agrees with first part of comment.

1. Is Spiers the sole presenter/narrator of the show? On what basis was he selected?

I believe so, and I think he was chosen as being “a respected Scottish sports journalist”, remember he writes for The Times

2. Why did the BBC make no effort to contact fans bodies or external websites for their opinions?

I’ve no idea, but maybe short notice or GS volunteered

3. What other Rangers fans were present?

A couple of other bluenoses of mixed age, there was a last minute call off.

4. How were the Celtic fans picked?

They will be chosen at random on their way to and from the match tonight for a vox pop type of interview

5. Are the clubs taking part?

No, I don’t think they were asked.

6. What efforts were made to discuss the wider-ranging social contribution to the problem of intolerance and what solutions were offered by the presenter?

Really just a football discussion and GS made no attempt at solutions.

Hope that answers your points.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[minstral 5,375]

Morning all, thanks for the reams of support.

I've penned some more indicative comments on last night which you can all peruse and no doubt many of you will respond to, so please before ordering my knee capping be assured my intentions are honest and true, and I have no hiddeen agenda.

Firstly let me make it clear that in no way did we claim to be spokespeople for Rangers, Rangers supporters, or any supporters body, we are simply fans who support our club, and were invited to take part, and have opinions on how we are treated/perceived by the world outdoors.

TFS,

Discussed at length with GS being completely opposed to this song, we strongly defended our position stating it was a wind up aimed at plastic paddies, not at Celtic fans in general or catholics or indeed the Irish. Also said we respect their heritage as we do with other clubs but they alone continually throw it in others faces so they have in many ways orchestrated the reaction against them, used the example of Hibs, similar background but totally assimilated into Scotland In summary, asked why if they are so anti-British and they hate our country so much then why do they continue to live here. Also mentioned the contradiction of them being an Irish club when it suits them but remind everyone of being British in ‘67

Sectarianism

GS claims we have been very slow to act on this and Celtic are ahead of us We disagreed strongly and took the attitude that while they may have begun their process before us, in recent years we have done far more than them and we are now in fact ahead of where they are. Also discussed why there are other clubs with a far greater level of problem than us with particular mention of those that support murdering terrorist organisations, and in fact Rangers should be applauded for the work done recently and not be the whipping boys. Discussed the signing of MoJo, how SDM broke down the protestant only policy(if it ever really did exist), and how we were not fouded on religious grounds unlike some others.

Being Brittish

Made no apology for being a Scottish & British club, why should we be ashamed of our roots and Britishness, we are British and proud of it. We appear to be the only country where being the indigenous population is seen as bad.

The media

Suggested we get a very hard time from the media in general, asked why every single move we make or song we sing is analysed to death when others can sing about issues such as the Ibrox disaster, make fun of the less able bodied, support the PIRA etc. Also raised why the poppy fiasco went relatively uncovered and has since disappeared into the ether.

Irishness(excluding Ulster of course)

Discussed their love of Ireland and all things Irish, our contention was that they have played the green card to their own benefit for financial reasons and will continue to do so, allowing displays of the Tricolour and Irish music and tradition to take over the club.

Being a Bear/Rangers tradition

Discussed what being a bear meant, how important it is to so many, why the Rangers tradition was important and why it remains so, and why we should not be ashamed of it.

Posed the question why they can celebrate their heritage but we get slaughtered for supporting ours.

It’s really now down to the editing team to cut it how they see fit but there is a chance it may go out pretty much unedited, I will let you know as soon as I do.

I’ll talk with my fellow(Bluenose) contributors later today and if there is anything missed I can add it later.

Better get some work done now.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

can you tell us what speirs replied to the questions that you asked him.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

We do not know what brief Spiers has, nor the production team behind the program, but as a Journalist Spiers also has the right to comment on and investigate the issues of the day,

We DO know what brief Spiers has.

He always has the same brief.

Not true, strictly speaking:

"The mood at Hampden was predictably puerile and raucous, though some of us on these occasions would do well not

to indulge in too much phoney dismay. It is becoming trite today to lay into the sordid Old Firm pageant, when, in fact,

minus its garish accretions, many would miss its saltier elements. It might be comical to witness the aghast reaction of

some society and newspaper critics, otherwise forever foaming with indignation, were this ragged spectacle suddenly to

be sanitised of its warts. The Old Firm attract plenty revulsion. Excited voyeurism is also thick on the ground."

I post that not to defend him, but to highlight his hypocrisy.

[BallochBear 1,613]

Sounds like you did a decent job, BB.

What kind of response did Spiers give to this?

We had a frank discussion with him, and as you would expect he tryid to be provative and almost goad us into saying something we shouldn't(I suppose it's his job) but IMO we did a pretty good job in not getting too heated. At the end both him and his sound recordist appeared to think it went well and they commented how there was no swearing so therefore it could be possible to use the entire piece without any bleeps.

I am under no illusion that we have changed his mind in any way but if it helps to get our points across as a reasonable support and not the knuckle-dragging white underclass we are portrayed as then it might have been a worthwhile exercise.

I hope so anyway.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[bluepeter 5,627]

Sounds like you did a decent job, BB.

What kind of response did Spiers give to this?

We had a frank discussion with him, and as you would expect he tryid to be provative and almost goad us into saying something we shouldn't(I suppose it's his job) but IMO we did a pretty good job in not getting too heated. At the end both him and his sound recordist appeared to think it went well and they commented how there was no swearing so therefore it could be possible to use the entire piece without any bleeps.

I am under no illusion that we have changed his mind in any way but if it helps to get our points across as a reasonable support and not the knuckle-dragging white underclass we are portrayed as then it might have been a worthwhile exercise.

I hope so anyway.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

I hope so too, Balloch Bear

:unionflag:

[BallochBear 1,613]

Morning all, thanks for the reams of support.

I've penned some more indicative comments on last night which you can all peruse and no doubt many of you will respond to, so please before ordering my knee capping be assured my intentions are honest and true, and I have no hiddeen agenda.

Firstly let me make it clear that in no way did we claim to be spokespeople for Rangers, Rangers supporters, or any supporters body, we are simply fans who support our club, and were invited to take part, and have opinions on how we are treated/perceived by the world outdoors.

TFS,

Discussed at length with GS being completely opposed to this song, we strongly defended our position stating it was a wind up aimed at plastic paddies, not at Celtic fans in general or catholics or indeed the Irish. Also said we respect their heritage as we do with other clubs but they alone continually throw it in others faces so they have in many ways orchestrated the reaction against them, used the example of Hibs, similar background but totally assimilated into Scotland In summary, asked why if they are so anti-British and they hate our country so much then why do they continue to live here. Also mentioned the contradiction of them being an Irish club when it suits them but remind everyone of being British in ‘67

Sectarianism

GS claims we have been very slow to act on this and Celtic are ahead of us We disagreed strongly and took the attitude that while they may have begun their process before us, in recent years we have done far more than them and we are now in fact ahead of where they are. Also discussed why there are other clubs with a far greater level of problem than us with particular mention of those that support murdering terrorist organisations, and in fact Rangers should be applauded for the work done recently and not be the whipping boys. Discussed the signing of MoJo, how SDM broke down the protestant only policy(if it ever really did exist), and how we were not fouded on religious grounds unlike some others.

Being Brittish

Made no apology for being a Scottish & British club, why should we be ashamed of our roots and Britishness, we are British and proud of it. We appear to be the only country where being the indigenous population is seen as bad.

The media

Suggested we get a very hard time from the media in general, asked why every single move we make or song we sing is analysed to death when others can sing about issues such as the Ibrox disaster, make fun of the less able bodied, support the PIRA etc. Also raised why the poppy fiasco went relatively uncovered and has since disappeared into the ether.

Irishness(excluding Ulster of course)

Discussed their love of Ireland and all things Irish, our contention was that they have played the green card to their own benefit for financial reasons and will continue to do so, allowing displays of the Tricolour and Irish music and tradition to take over the club.

Being a Bear/Rangers tradition

Discussed what being a bear meant, how important it is to so many, why the Rangers tradition was important and why it remains so, and why we should not be ashamed of it.

Posed the question why they can celebrate their heritage but we get slaughtered for supporting ours.

It’s really now down to the editing team to cut it how they see fit but there is a chance it may go out pretty much unedited, I will let you know as soon as I do.

I’ll talk with my fellow(Bluenose) contributors later today and if there is anything missed I can add it later.

Better get some work done now.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

can you tell us what speirs replied to the questions that you asked him.

To be honest Minstral there were a few points where he almost agreed, the ones relating to the PIRA support by them, their British/Irish hypocrisy, the poppy debacle, the minutes applause debacle, and if I think of any others I’ll let you know.

:unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[minstral 5,375]

nothing will change his mind because he is a snake who hates our support.

[Frankie 505]

Thanks again BB...

Your responses are as expected and this is where I foresee problems. The programme claims to be about the Old Firm but only seems to be spending any real time with Rangers fans. That could be a good thing or, as seems more likely, only because they intend minimising the time spent on Celtic's alleged problems (which Spiers often defends) while maximising the time spent criticising ours.

I do thank you for taking the time (and personal criticism) to put across our point of view and I hope it is used fairly and responsibly by Spiers and the production team.

Unfortunately, I think this exercise will be used as another platform for Spiers to put across his flawed opinion even if you (and others) are more than capable of showing this opinion to be without genuine basis.

I hope I'm wrong.