The Radio Show with Britney

[Polo 1,455]

My critics and their disappearing act

I’ve had quite an intriguing experience recently while making a mini-documentary about the Old Firm which is to be broadcast this coming Friday evening on The World Tonight on Radio 4 – the day before the Old Firm derby at Ibrox.

The remit from the BBC was quite simple. “You have been highly critical of Rangers FC in your writing and broadcasting, especially in regard to Rangers supporters and bigotry,” it said. “So let’s hear your case – and let your critics have their say, too.”

I must say it all sounded fair enough to me. But, blow me, see when it came to rounding up “the critics” as they are self-styled... I’ve hardly seen so many people scurrying up alleyways or suddenly going lame from old shrapnel wounds, making their attendance at the debate impossible.

For those Rangers supporters from the various groups who have wanted to “argue football” with me, I mistakenly thought, here is their golden chance. But no, various ailments and sneezes meant that quite a few – the serially-aggrieved Rangers Supporters Trust among them – couldn’t come to the microphone with me.

In football, you quickly come to appreciate the empty bluster of hardcore fans.

In the end I did manage to meet a group of Rangers supporters, who put their case robustly to me. But to those others who have tried to be on my case, I say, come on chaps, play up!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5380251.ece

[covenanter 158]

My critics and their disappearing act

I’ve had quite an intriguing experience recently while making a mini-documentary about the Old Firm which is to be broadcast this coming Friday evening on The World Tonight on Radio 4 – the day before the Old Firm derby at Ibrox.

The remit from the BBC was quite simple. “You have been highly critical of Rangers FC in your writing and broadcasting, especially in regard to Rangers supporters and bigotry,” it said. “So let’s hear your case – and let your critics have their say, too.”

I must say it all sounded fair enough to me. But, blow me, see when it came to rounding up “the critics” as they are self-styled... I’ve hardly seen so many people scurrying up alleyways or suddenly going lame from old shrapnel wounds, making their attendance at the debate impossible.

For those Rangers supporters from the various groups who have wanted to “argue football” with me, I mistakenly thought, here is their golden chance. But no, various ailments and sneezes meant that quite a few – the serially-aggrieved Rangers Supporters Trust among them – couldn’t come to the microphone with me.

In football, you quickly come to appreciate the empty bluster of hardcore fans.

In the end I did manage to meet a group of Rangers supporters, who put their case robustly to me. But to those others who have tried to be on my case, I say, come on chaps, play up!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5380251.ece

Ah, that's better, the return of the triumphalistic Bhoy in Corduroy.

So, what was Graham's motivation for stating, "Ian Ferguson has all the charm of a child molester"?

[covenanter 158]

My critics and their disappearing act

I’ve had quite an intriguing experience recently while making a mini-documentary about the Old Firm which is to be broadcast this coming Friday evening on The World Tonight on Radio 4 – the day before the Old Firm derby at Ibrox.

The remit from the BBC was quite simple. “You have been highly critical of Rangers FC in your writing and broadcasting, especially in regard to Rangers supporters and bigotry,” it said. “So let’s hear your case – and let your critics have their say, too.”

I must say it all sounded fair enough to me. But, blow me, see when it came to rounding up “the critics” as they are self-styled... I’ve hardly seen so many people scurrying up alleyways or suddenly going lame from old shrapnel wounds, making their attendance at the debate impossible.

For those Rangers supporters from the various groups who have wanted to “argue football” with me, I mistakenly thought, here is their golden chance. But no, various ailments and sneezes meant that quite a few – the serially-aggrieved Rangers Supporters Trust among them – couldn’t come to the microphone with me.

In football, you quickly come to appreciate the empty bluster of hardcore fans.

In the end I did manage to meet a group of Rangers supporters, who put their case robustly to me. But to those others who have tried to be on my case, I say, come on chaps, play up!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5380251.ece

[MayboleLoyal_atb 4,083]

Wouldn't give him the time of day, how he is still in a job is beyond me.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

[Coopermania 1]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

I would disagree BP9. I think a lot of guys simply didn't want to waste their time on proven Rangers-basher Spiers, and in my opinion why should they ?

[Orangeclement 619]

Whats wrong with that he has a point they bitch and moan about what he writes, they are invited to take him up on his views and they all pussy out.

i say well done to balloch bear for actually getting off his arse to do something about it.

[Orangeclement 619]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

I would disagree BP9. I think a lot of guys simply didn't want to waste their time on proven Rangers-basher Spiers, and in my opinion why should they ?

And whats happened they have given him more reason to bash them

[MayboleLoyal_atb 4,083]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

I would disagree BP9. I think a lot of guys simply didn't want to waste their time on proven Rangers-basher Spiers, and in my opinion why should they ?

May have been a few who didn't want to end up in jail either.

[martyb1873 0]

WTF!!!! WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT COUNTRY WE LIVE IN! I mean how can that even be considered never mind make the front page of a national paper!!! we would be better not going to the game on saturday. let the tims in to rip our seats out and graffiti the toilets, thay can sing a coulpe of perfectly acceptable irish "folk" songs, shout some perfectly acceptable abuse at the queen and country who pay there giros, provide there health care, police there streets etc etc...... then give them an award to say how good there fans are!!!! But we will be jailed for signing the fucking hokey cokey!!!!!! WTF is this counrty coming to????? :unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[Polo 1,455]

WTF!!!! WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT COUNTRY WE LIVE IN! I mean how can that even be considered never mind make the front page of a national paper!!! we would be better not going to the game on saturday. let the tims in to rip our seats out and graffiti the toilets, thay can sing a coulpe of perfectly acceptable irish "folk" songs, shout some perfectly acceptable abuse at the queen and country who pay there giros, provide there health care, police there streets etc etc...... then give them an award to say how good there fans are!!!! But we will be jailed for signing the fucking hokey cokey!!!!!! WTF is this counrty coming to????? :unionflag: :unionflag: :unionflag:

[Thermopylae 15,288]

The only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Whats wrong with that he has a point they bitch and moan about what he writes, they are invited to take him up on his views and they all pussy out.

i say well done to balloch bear for actually getting off his arse to do something about it.

I hope someone gives you a brain for Xmas.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

[Orangeclement 619]

Whats wrong with that he has a point they bitch and moan about what he writes, they are invited to take him up on his views and they all pussy out.

i say well done to balloch bear for actually getting off his arse to do something about it.

I hope someone gives you a brain for Xmas.

oh very clever arn't you, hope you get a smack in the gob ya cheeky prick

[Wreckedroy 33]

My critics and their disappearing act

I’ve had quite an intriguing experience recently while making a mini-documentary about the Old Firm which is to be broadcast this coming Friday evening on The World Tonight on Radio 4 – the day before the Old Firm derby at Ibrox.

The remit from the BBC was quite simple. “You have been highly critical of Rangers FC in your writing and broadcasting, especially in regard to Rangers supporters and bigotry,” it said. “So let’s hear your case – and let your critics have their say, too.”

I must say it all sounded fair enough to me. But, blow me, see when it came to rounding up “the critics” as they are self-styled... I’ve hardly seen so many people scurrying up alleyways or suddenly going lame from old shrapnel wounds, making their attendance at the debate impossible.

For those Rangers supporters from the various groups who have wanted to “argue football” with me, I mistakenly thought, here is their golden chance. But no, various ailments and sneezes meant that quite a few – the serially-aggrieved Rangers Supporters Trust among them – couldn’t come to the microphone with me.

In football, you quickly come to appreciate the empty bluster of hardcore fans.

In the end I did manage to meet a group of Rangers supporters, who put their case robustly to me. But to those others who have tried to be on my case, I say, come on chaps, play up!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle5380251.ece

Ah, that's better, the return of the triumphalistic Bhoy in Corduroy.

So, what was Graham's motivation for stating, "Ian Ferguson has all the charm of a child molester"?

Why ask on here? You, and every other Bear obsessed with Britneys every word, had the chance to ask him face-to-face and turned it down.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

It is the twilight Zone - I agree 100% with outlaw69uk - :unionflag:

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

I know for a fact that Spiers was told that people from this site didn't attend due to him chairing the debate. The point was made that we are willing to debate him, but not in a manner where he has greater editorial influence. A free, open and fair platform is satisfactory, but we didn't want to contribute to his latest opportunity to further his career, by doing us over yet again.

If it was our platform, for example, then we'd be satisfied, but the Radio 4 documentary was not something we wanted to help him with.

[Orangeclement 619]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

rather flimsy excuse

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Oleg:

TBH - perhaps this debate is best just left until we see what happens on the Radio Show and then we can debate the merits of meeting him or otherwise ?

MX

[outlaw69uk 123]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

I know for a fact that Spiers was told that people from this site didn't attend due to him chairing the debate. The point was made that we are willing to debate him, but not in a manner where he has greater editorial influence. A free, open and fair platform is satisfactory, but we didn't want to contribute to his latest opportunity to further his career, by doing us over yet again.

If it was our platform, for example, then we'd be satisfied, but the Radio 4 documentary was not something we wanted to help him with.

My understanding of the event, was that the editorial side was to be done from London, not in Scotland, with Spiers not being the main editor. I would personally have thought this would have been one of the best opportunities to enter into debate with him. But, perhaps we will find out differently after it is aired

[samNewton 0]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

I support the RST's line on this. I also think a refusal to co-operate with Spiers is far from unique among the Rangers support.

By agreeing to share a platform - where he will undoubtedly have influence if not full control in editorial terms - Rangers fans are giving this guy the veneer of credibility he craves.

Should a Rangers supporters group have agreed to talk with Spiers and found out it had been stitched up when the final programme emerged, its credibility would be in tatters. Let's not forget that Spiers has a track record of omitting any comments from Rangers fans which don't fit his agenda.

Why should we accept a situation in which Spiers - or BBC Scotland, for that matter - will ultimately dictate the agenda?

Why aren't Rangers supporters allowed a programme in which we have editorial control (subject, of course, to BBC guidelines)?

If you think Spiers would welcome an open debate with people who could ask him questions about his past comments regarding sectarianism and the Old Firm, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

I support the RST's line on this. I also think a refusal to co-operate with Spiers is far from unique among the Rangers support.

By agreeing to share a platform - where he will undoubtedly have influence if not full control in editorial terms - Rangers fans are giving this guy the veneer of credibility he craves.

Should a Rangers supporters group have agreed to talk with Spiers and found out it had been stitched up when the final programme emerged, its credibility would be in tatters. Let's not forget that Spiers has a track record of omitting any comments from Rangers fans which don't fit his agenda.

Why should we accept a situation in which Spiers - or BBC Scotland, for that matter - will ultimately dictate the agenda?

Why aren't Rangers supporters allowed a programme in which we have editorial control (subject, of course, to BBC guidelines)?

If you think Spiers would welcome an open debate with people who could ask him questions about his past comments regarding sectarianism and the Old Firm, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Given its the festive period, and I will guess you are younger than me, I wont bite at that one!

If it was BBC Scotland, I would agree with that part, my understanding is, it is not, especially as the producer is from London.

But, perhaps you are correct, far better to hide and maybe hope someone says something nice about us, at the same time, demonishing the club for "not speaking out to defend us"?

Or, perhaps some have no confidence in the ability of our representatives to put forth an argument/debate with any eloquance? There are ways to state things that can only be taken in one context, regardless of who is editing it, then again, after seeing many of the statements from supporter groups in the past, again, you may be right, as, I dont think some can put things across well

[outlaw69uk 123]

I have to say Brittany has a point!! All credit to Balloch Bear and his posse for meeting him - Balloch Bear tried to get people to turn up but the backtracking and excuses were pitiful (and yes I include myself in that as I didn't attend either).

FFS!

Eh, no he doesn't. People, including myself, didn't attend due to him "chairing" the debate and he was told this, along with the fact that we are more than comfortable in destroying his flimsy arguments, by means of his own words.

This article merely confirms our predictions beforehand, when we stated he would claim "cowardice" despite the facts stated above.

Oleg,

In a bizarre twist of reality, I find myself disagreeing with you, and actually agreeing with BP9!!

We all have our reasons for not attending, and, perhaps, due to GS's nature, and history, have jumped to a conclusion without reading the piece, which is fair enough, I tend not to read him. But, what he is saying is, the more "vocal" groups, which are, those who generally GET statements into the press, declined (of course that was put in a rather snide way), yet, he is actually positive about the guys who showed up. Its fair enough. We, and organised Rangers groups DO complain about the imbalance in the media towards us, and, when offered a chance, declined to show up. If I was a member of, say, the RST, I would be disappointed that they did not go, as, not attending makes it "appear" that they do not have a point, nor the balls to go through with something. In addition, that very factor will be used against us now, and in the future, when it comes to this type of thing, and how we are portrayed

I support the RST's line on this. I also think a refusal to co-operate with Spiers is far from unique among the Rangers support.

By agreeing to share a platform - where he will undoubtedly have influence if not full control in editorial terms - Rangers fans are giving this guy the veneer of credibility he craves.

How does this give him "credibility? Surely he doesnt require this?

Should a Rangers supporters group have agreed to talk with Spiers and found out it had been stitched up when the final programme emerged, its credibility would be in tatters. Let's not forget that Spiers has a track record of omitting any comments from Rangers fans which don't fit his agenda.

I would have said yes, easily a yes. So many complain about their "representation" in the press, yet are unwilling to do anything about it, and, from the OP, you can see how it looks when they didnt

Why should we accept a situation in which Spiers - or BBC Scotland, for that matter - will ultimately dictate the agenda?

What is the other choice? Can you name one? No, unless its "dignified silence" followed by complaining about his "pish" in the press

Why aren't Rangers supporters allowed a programme in which we have editorial control (subject, of course, to BBC guidelines)?

Is that serious? Which other supporters group, from ANY sport, have such a thing?

If you think Spiers would welcome an open debate with people who could ask him questions about his past comments regarding sectarianism and the Old Firm, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Apart from the childish comment at the end, perhaps, the man has a large ego, and thinks, rightly or wrongly, he can win ANY debate, regardless of its topic? Just a thought