The Radio Show with Britney

[Jimenez 1]

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

Then why will he refuse a debate when the terms are set by by the Rangers support, Spiers has already proven that he is capable of twisting a debate to suit his argument in the past.

If a meeting were to be arranged where editing was to be controled by a trusted body then I'm sure Spiers would find he has plenty of Rangers fans willing to go toe to toe with him.

Quite simply Spiers or the BBC for that matter can't be trusted on an issue that concerns Rangers fans and sectarianism.

[outlaw69uk 123]

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

Then why will he refuse a debate when the terms are set by by the Rangers support, Spiers has already proven that he is capable of twisting a debate to suit his argument in the past.

If a meeting were to be arranged where editing was to be controled by a trusted body then I'm sure Spiers would find he has plenty of Rangers fans willing to go toe to toe with him.

Quite simply Spiers or the BBC for that matter can't be trusted on an issue that concerns Rangers fans and sectarianism.

Surely we have some that could twist it back? somewhere

I know where you are coming from Jim, although, I do not think that there would be a long list of bodies that Rangers fans in general would trust to do this at the moment?

Do we now distrust ALL the BBC, not just BBC Scotland?

[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.

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

I am certain there are Rangers fans out there with sufficient eloquence.

And, dare I say it, many far more knowledgeable than Graham Spiers.

He craves credibility - only a fool would lay it on a plate for him.

[Jimenez 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).

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

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

[Jimenez 1]

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

Then why will he refuse a debate when the terms are set by by the Rangers support, Spiers has already proven that he is capable of twisting a debate to suit his argument in the past.

If a meeting were to be arranged where editing was to be controled by a trusted body then I'm sure Spiers would find he has plenty of Rangers fans willing to go toe to toe with him.

Quite simply Spiers or the BBC for that matter can't be trusted on an issue that concerns Rangers fans and sectarianism.

Surely we have some that could twist it back? somewhere

I know where you are coming from Jim, although, I do not think that there would be a long list of bodies that Rangers fans in general would trust to do this at the moment?

Do we now distrust ALL the BBC, not just BBC Scotland?

No. that's the point, he will cast us in a bad light due to being in control of the editing and we'll be left writing e-mails and letters to no one who is interested.

The BBC contacted Spiers ? I find that hard to believe, I don't know what their intentions are here but where Spiers is involved in relation to the Rangers fans then we should always verge on the side of caution.

If Spiers wants a debate then we'll arrange the meeting under our terms 'cause he can't be trusted. Spiers has had plenty of invites before and refused them all.

[simplythebestest 2,148]

In light of the fact that our international credibility is so low among many important/powerful circles, people like Britney just seem like bandwaggon hoppers & attention/approval seekers to me. I think we are harmed by the fact that we care so much about the club and are always quick to defend ourselves and answer their questioning head on. In answering the questions they pose, we give weight to the underlying discourse - we give weight to the notion that we are sectarian etc. If we focus our efforts on asking questions of other journalists/teams/religious factions we will add weight to the notion that they have an underlying agenda. THAT might be the reason why no serious challenge has been posed to Britney - we are subconsciously aware of the fact that he, as our detractor, is in a position of power.

[outlaw69uk 123]

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

Then why will he refuse a debate when the terms are set by by the Rangers support, Spiers has already proven that he is capable of twisting a debate to suit his argument in the past.

If a meeting were to be arranged where editing was to be controled by a trusted body then I'm sure Spiers would find he has plenty of Rangers fans willing to go toe to toe with him.

Quite simply Spiers or the BBC for that matter can't be trusted on an issue that concerns Rangers fans and sectarianism.

Surely we have some that could twist it back? somewhere

I know where you are coming from Jim, although, I do not think that there would be a long list of bodies that Rangers fans in general would trust to do this at the moment?

Do we now distrust ALL the BBC, not just BBC Scotland?

No. that's the point, he will cast us in a bad light due to being in control of the editing and we'll be left writing e-mails and letters to no one who is interested.

The BBC contacted Spiers ? I find that hard to believe, I don't know what their intentions are here but where Spiers is involved in relation to the Rangers fans then we should always verge on the side of caution.

If Spiers wants a debate then we'll arrange the meeting under our terms 'cause he can't be trusted. Spiers has had plenty of invites before and refused them all.

Its fair enough mate, I would just prefer us to be a bit more proactive about it, rather than complaining about the likes of Spiers, complaining the club doesnt do anything etc. We seem to be content to complain, and, well, not actually do anything, which I dont agree with, and, I dont think that is how our supprters organisations should conduct themselves either. Perhaps the fact that these people can print what they like, without any kind of backlash from us, actually encourages them to do so more? I know I would!

I also think, not turning up was a bad move, by the organisations I mean, because it opens themselves up to the kind of piece written above. This also means, should the programme be edited in an unbiased manner by the BBC, that the likes of Spiers can use that going forward too, since, those that turned up, and, had valid points etc etc, will be a "minority" non-affiliated with the main supporters groups, who will continue to be unfairly attacked I would imagine, and, due to the no show, will then look weaker when they respond.

I cant believe its only me who has seen this

[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.

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

Spiers has been attempting to paint himself as a lapsed Rangers fan for quite some time now. Following a foolish decision by its editors, he was invited to contribute a chapter last year in the book 'It's Rangers For Me?' where he lost no time in trashing the club's past.

He also used this as an opportunity to attack the RST for 'lying' about him. In a huge and widely propagated list of highly-embarrassing quotes by Spiers, someone at the RST mistakenly used the word 'troglodytes' when Spiers had in fact used the word 'cavemen'. Yes, one tiny error amid a list pages long was the 'lie' Spiers used as grounds for his case! Do you honestly believe people in the RST would be daft enough to trust him?

On previous occasions when Spiers has opened himself to the public, one was timed when Rangers were playing and the other took place in the Roman Catholic Chaplaincy at Glasgow University.

He chickened out of an appearance on Real Radio and only agreed to attend a couple of weeks later if certain conditions were met.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with outsiders being given permission to produce a programme - especially, if they can make a case that they suffer from institutional bias and wish a right to reply.

If TV channels can do this, why not Radio Scotland?

It sounds as if you think people like Spiers have a divine right to preach to us.

Remind me what are Spiers's credentials for having this right - with respect to Radio Scotland at least.

[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

Spiers has been attempting to paint himself as a lapsed Rangers fan for quite some time now. Following a foolish decision by its editors, he was invited to contribute a chapter last year in the book 'It's Rangers For Me?' where he lost no time in trashing the club's past.

He also used this as an opportunity to attack the RST for 'lying' about him. In a huge and widely propagated list of highly-embarrassing quotes by Spiers, someone at the RST mistakenly used the word 'troglodytes' when Spiers had in fact used the word 'cavemen'. Yes, one tiny error amid a list pages long was the 'lie' Spiers used as grounds for his case! Do you honestly believe people in the RST would be daft enough to trust him?

On previous occasions when Spiers has opened himself to the public, one was timed when Rangers were playing and the other took place in the Roman Catholic Chaplaincy at Glasgow University.

He chickened out of an appearance on Real Radio and only agreed to attend a couple of weeks later if certain conditions were met.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with outsiders being given permission to produce a programme - especially, if they can make a case that they suffer from institutional bias and wish a right to reply.

If TV channels can do this, why not Radio Scotland?

It sounds as if you think people like Spiers have a divine right to preach to us.

Remind me what are Spiers's credentials for having this right - with respect to Radio Scotland at least.

Well, you can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 124 cant you? Where did I ONCE say this?

I am quite aware of his history with all things Rangers concerned. If you are unable to actually read what I put, and reply to it, then, why bother?

And, just to clarify, its not Radio Scotland, I believe its Radio 4

[samNewton 0]

Well, you can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 124 cant you? Where did I ONCE say this?

I am quite aware of his history with all things Rangers concerned. If you are unable to actually read what I put, and reply to it, then, why bother?

And, just to clarify, its not Radio Scotland, I believe its Radio 4

OK, Radio 4 then.

I think I gave you a pretty good summary of the reasons against meeting up with Spiers - no need to get touchy.

With a readership of less than 30,000, he needs the BBC stuff to maintain his profile.

I just dispute the whole idea that he is a bona fide radio presenter simply trying to make a programme - he is an agenda-driven journalist who needs to maintain his profile.

Our problem is that we live in a society in which these people effectively control the airwaves while outsiders are effectively censored - and will only be allowed to contribute under very strict conditions.

One little clue as to the range of ground Spiers will permit. He was asked at GU's Turnbull Hall to comment about factors outside football which affect sectarianism; he replied that he wasn't qualified to do so.

That kind of narrows things down, somewhat.

[cooperonthewing 0]

Yet another lie by this so-called journalist. The RST was not invited to participate in this. We didn't get the chance to refuse.

[Guest Andypendek]

Petty and chlildish, plainly GS was struggling to fill his column this week.

It is - genuinely - sad to see Spiers reduced to such desperate pot stirring and self advertising (and self-aggrandisement, tbh). While I certainly wouldn't give him the time of day regarding us and his opinion of us, I can't take pleasure from seeing a good writer and imaginative reporter throw away his talent in such a pointless way.

[mark_ni 12]

i wouldnt go near a debate that bitter twisted bigot was chairing. He just cant help himself from having a dig at us. I know we still have morons at our club but what i think is the saddest thing is that i am convinced Spiers actually doesnt want us to sort the problem out completely. Even Uefa have praised us for the work we have done yet not a mention from britney, if anything he just slags us off even more. Its people like him who are the real problem in scotland. Just cant take it that people can change and move on.

[Bluedell 14]

Everyone who took part in the debate is just helping the career of a Rangers hater.

That's the bottom line, and anything else is just ego.

[Guest Andypendek]

Well, we're all guilty of that, I suppose.

[slimjim1690 4,534]

Just think this little prog. will give him some credability with chums at the beeb, who might be tempted to offer him another show if this one goes favourably.

I just like to think if nobody had showed up it would have showed him up as a nonentity as far as Rangers fans were concerned and would have been another nail in his coffin as being seen as a serious contributer to the sectarian debate.

The supporters who attended are entitled to their opinion as much as anyone, but with Spiers starting to stir the shit again, I can't see the point of a debate while he is in the chair.

[Bluedell 14]

So Spiers has used the attendance of Balloch Bear et al as an excuse to have a go at some of their fellow Rangers supporters.

I hope you're very proud, guys.

You can't say you weren't warned.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

So Spiers has used the attendance of Balloch Bear et al as an excuse to have a go at some of their fellow Rangers supporters.

I hope you're very proud, guys.

You can't say you weren't warned.

At least they werent cowards and the whole problem with debate is there are two opposing views - but by NOT engaging only one view gets heard. All praise to Balloch Bear for not being a coward and getting our points across - and should you NOT wait till 27th to see how well they come across?

[Orangeclement 584]

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

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

If the RST had bothered their arse to go along and attend as balloch bear did then how can spiers claim cowardice!!!!

as i said flismsy as fuck, you all like to open your mouths on a fucking internet forum but dont have the balls to go face to face with the man.

Internet hardmen .

[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.

rather flimsy excuse

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

If the RST had bothered their arse to go along and attend as balloch bear did then how can spiers claim cowardice!!!!

as i said flismsy as fuck, you all like to open your mouths on a fucking internet forum but dont have the balls to go face to face with the man.

Internet hardmen .

The reasons why Rangers supporters groups won't appear on this radio programme with Spiers have been explained in great detail.

The RST has always said it would agree to meet Spiers, McNee, or anyone else for that matter, in an open debate chaired by a neutral.

You sound to me like a complete clown who substitutes abusive language for any depth of thought.

[outlaw69uk 123]

So Spiers has used the attendance of Balloch Bear et al as an excuse to have a go at some of their fellow Rangers supporters.

I hope you're very proud, guys.

You can't say you weren't warned.

At least they werent cowards and the whole problem with debate is there are two opposing views - but by NOT engaging only one view gets heard. All praise to Balloch Bear for not being a coward and getting our points across - and should you NOT wait till 27th to see how well they come across?

Oh no, that wouldnt be sensible at all, far better to get worked up over something that hasnt happened, and, let the speculation run wild

I am so disappointed, I normally am the polar opposite of you on "important" topics, yet, not this one. Confusing me. Then again, some, like Sam Newton appear to think I like Britney! Ah well

[joeli 27]

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

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

If the RST had bothered their arse to go along and attend as balloch bear did then how can spiers claim cowardice!!!!

as i said flismsy as fuck, you all like to open your mouths on a fucking internet forum but dont have the balls to go face to face with the man.

Internet hardmen .

I don't think the RST were asked.

[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.

rather flimsy excuse

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

If the RST had bothered their arse to go along and attend as balloch bear did then how can spiers claim cowardice!!!!

as i said flismsy as fuck, you all like to open your mouths on a fucking internet forum but dont have the balls to go face to face with the man.

Internet hardmen .

The reasons why Rangers supporters groups won't appear on this radio programme with Spiers have been explained in great detail.

The RST has always said it would agree to meet Spiers, McNee, or anyone else for that matter, in an open debate chaired by a neutral.

You sound to me like a complete clown who substitutes abusive language for any depth of thought.

The fact he swore doesnt take away from his point, which is pretty much the same as mine was earlier. Its not been a very good year for the RST has it? I think they looked bad when several influencial people left, and, didnt handle themselves well, and, I dont think they handled this well. Are they SO unsure of their capabilities that they were what? too scared to turn up and be made to look silly?

As I said before, Spiers may have been the figurehead, or, presenter, but, the whole thing was being run by "them from down south", so, again, an ideal situation. Perhaps, when we hear it, you will be proved right, and we look bad, however, there is a good chance that we will look positive, and, if THAT is the case, the RST, RSA etc will once again look very bad, and petty even, for not attending

[Fiogh 178]

Who could have predicted such an outcome?

Britney twisting the facts to suite an agenda, never thought I'd see the day...

[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.

rather flimsy excuse

How can it be a flimsy excuse when Spiers has already stated in the past that we have the bigger sectarianism problem, that our heritage is flawed, and singing pro IRA chants is political ?

Can this guy be trusted to chair the debate in an even handed manner ? Don't forget that over a three year period he called the Rangers support vile, rancid, knuckledraggers, bigots to a man without printing one letter of reply from the Rangers support.

I can't believe how gullible some of our support are.

If the RST had bothered their arse to go along and attend as balloch bear did then how can spiers claim cowardice!!!!

as i said flismsy as fuck, you all like to open your mouths on a fucking internet forum but dont have the balls to go face to face with the man.

Internet hardmen .

The reasons why Rangers supporters groups won't appear on this radio programme with Spiers have been explained in great detail.

The RST has always said it would agree to meet Spiers, McNee, or anyone else for that matter, in an open debate chaired by a neutral.

You sound to me like a complete clown who substitutes abusive language for any depth of thought.

The fact he swore doesnt take away from his point, which is pretty much the same as mine was earlier. Its not been a very good year for the RST has it? I think they looked bad when several influencial people left, and, didnt handle themselves well, and, I dont think they handled this well. Are they SO unsure of their capabilities that they were what? too scared to turn up and be made to look silly?

As I said before, Spiers may have been the figurehead, or, presenter, but, the whole thing was being run by "them from down south", so, again, an ideal situation. Perhaps, when we hear it, you will be proved right, and we look bad, however, there is a good chance that we will look positive, and, if THAT is the case, the RST, RSA etc will once again look very bad, and petty even, for not attending

I think you will find that the RST would have refused to meet Spiers in these circumstances before several people resigned from the board. Nothing has changed here.

I believe the RST has handled this the way it should have. There was never an official invitaion. It appears that a poster has arrived on at least two forums and sent out 'feelers' - is this approach really to be trusted or taken seriously?

It has been pointed out on several occasions why Rangers fans would be foolish to meet with Spiers unless under a neutral chair and with no possibility of censorship. If you are too obtuse to take these on board, then that is your problem.

This potential risks to Rangers fans and the boost to Spiers's credibility far outweigh any prospective advanatges.

It's not rocket science!