Tonight's the Night

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Err just listened to the article - Thought BB did OK in getting his points across and IF you were a neutral what would have come across was how loaded and biased the program was. The 'paid' tims came across as far more bigoted and intrangient than BB did.

That bit I agree with.

I have to laugh at some of the shit being posted against balloch Bear - some real sanctimonious (spelling) gits on here with their 'I told you so lines' Hindsight' strategists !!(HSS) Every thing is easy in hindsight. Nothing positive from the HSS just a go at anyone who tries!

You must be fishing.

How can it be "hindsight" if we "told [him] so"?

My point is no one knew what woulld happen - but coming on and saying 'I told you so' in the manner some have is pretty childish (IMHO)

[royalbluebell 38]

Err just listened to the article - Thought BB did OK in getting his points across and IF you were a neutral what would have come across was how loaded and biased the program was. The 'paid' tims came across as far more bigoted and intrangient than BB did.

That bit I agree with.

I have to laugh at some of the shit being posted against balloch Bear - some real sanctimonious (spelling) gits on here with their 'I told you so lines' Hindsight' strategists !!(HSS) Every thing is easy in hindsight. Nothing positive from the HSS just a go at anyone who tries!

You must be fishing.

How can it be "hindsight" if we "told [him] so"?

My point is no one knew what woulld happen - but coming on and saying 'I told you so' in the manner some have is pretty childish (IMHO)

I think you'll find that people did know what would happen. How could you not, with his previous!

[davie1689 1]

maybe posted b4

but is there a link to the recording of this show anywhere troops

[radlord 24]

is this available online anywhere?

Edit: what he said. It takes me 2 minutes more to type this than it should, it seems.

[Coopermania 1]

maybe posted b4

but is there a link to the recording of this show anywhere troops

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g2...ght_26_12_2008/

[samNewton 0]

Err just listened to the article - Thought BB did OK in getting his points across and IF you were a neutral what would have come across was how loaded and biased the program was. The 'paid' tims came across as far more bigoted and intrangient than BB did.

I have to laugh at some of the shit being posted against balloch Bear - some real sanctimonious (spelling) gits on here with their 'I told you so lines' Hindsight' strategists !!(HSS) Every thing is easy in hindsight. Nothing positive from the HSS just a go at anyone who tries!

This is complete nonsense.

Several posters warned of the danger of an organised supporters group appearing on this programme.

They said that Spiers could never be trusted notwithstanding the promise that he wouldn't do a 'hatchet job'.

They were vindicated.

Should an organised supporters group have been stupid enough to appear on the programme its name would now be mud.

The point you fail you understand is that wiser posters demonstrated foresight.

I disagree with those who argue that somehow Rangers came out of this well. The whole object was to put across the point that Rangers had a much more serious problem than Celtic. The Rangers fans in the pub were asked hopelessly loaded questions revolving around 'the famine song' while Findlay and Devine were invited to stick the boot in.

In response to another post, Jeanette Findlay is not a 'Dr.'.

She is one of the very few academics at Glasgow University without this title and she has a very modest track record in terms of research. There is absolutely no way she would have been promoted to her position in the current climate and many with higher qualifications and a much better record are being chased out the door.

[Coopermania 1]

I disagree with those who argue that somehow Rangers came out of this well. The whole object was to put across the point that Rangers had a much more serious problem than Celtic. The Rangers fans in the pub were asked hopelessly loaded questions revolving around 'the famine song' while Findlay and Devine were invited to stick the boot in.

I've re-listened and I also think that to an outsider happening to listen in, we are the ones who come out looking bad. Think of it, they will have little, or more likely no knowledge or understanding of the whole Rangers/Celtic thing. They will have paid more attention to the 'officials' being interviewed. Bar one of them, they were against us. Plus Spier's influence on top.

[Bluedell 14]

I have to laugh at some of the shit being posted against balloch Bear - some real sanctimonious (spelling) gits on here with their 'I told you so lines' Hindsight' strategists !!(HSS) Every thing is easy in hindsight. Nothing positive from the HSS just a go at anyone who tries!

You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to work out how we were going to be portrayed.

However no need for name calling just because you got it so hopelessly wrong. You're always the one who criticises people for name-calling and ends up doing it yourself.

[Guest Andypendek]

Aye? Well, I want to know why it's apparently ok for those greetin' faced hypocrites to tear the head of OUR religion to pieces - HRH The Queen - but cry as if mortally wounded if we dish it out to their pope?

Stepping cautiously into waters I'm not familiar with - since when was the Queen head of the Church of Scotland? Is that right? I never knew that at all. I understood the CoS to be leaning toward the Congregationalist, with an elected Moderator serving a term of a year, and various delegates forming working councils to undertake policy work when needed. Is she really Head?

[WVB 2,560]

Aye? Well, I want to know why it's apparently ok for those greetin' faced hypocrites to tear the head of OUR religion to pieces - HRH The Queen - but cry as if mortally wounded if we dish it out to their pope?

Stepping cautiously into waters I'm not familiar with - since when was the Queen head of the Church of Scotland? Is that right? I never knew that at all. I understood the CoS to be leaning toward the Congregationalist, with an elected Moderator serving a term of a year, and various delegates forming working councils to undertake policy work when needed. Is she really Head?

Good Lord, i do believe you're right.

As a lapsed Free Presbyterian, the head of my ex-religion is, er, Michael Stone.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Aye? Well, I want to know why it's apparently ok for those greetin' faced hypocrites to tear the head of OUR religion to pieces - HRH The Queen - but cry as if mortally wounded if we dish it out to their pope?

Stepping cautiously into waters I'm not familiar with - since when was the Queen head of the Church of Scotland? Is that right? I never knew that at all. I understood the CoS to be leaning toward the Congregationalist, with an elected Moderator serving a term of a year, and various delegates forming working councils to undertake policy work when needed. Is she really Head?

Good Lord, i do believe you're right.

As a lapsed Free Presbyterian, the head of my ex-religion is, er, Michael Stone.

You like Michael Stones, don't you?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Aye? Well, I want to know why it's apparently ok for those greetin' faced hypocrites to tear the head of OUR religion to pieces - HRH The Queen - but cry as if mortally wounded if we dish it out to their pope?

Stepping cautiously into waters I'm not familiar with - since when was the Queen head of the Church of Scotland? Is that right? I never knew that at all. I understood the CoS to be leaning toward the Congregationalist, with an elected Moderator serving a term of a year, and various delegates forming working councils to undertake policy work when needed. Is she really Head?

HRH, Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

The faith in question is ours - Protestant.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

Yes they do - one of the reasons why I am puzzled at this patronising evaluation of Balloch-Bears contribution. There's been a deluge of tut-tutting 'we told you so' comments - who told BB that Spiers and his mhates would make a right arse of themselves in their spectacularly miserable failure?

It's worth repeating that BallochBear made a decent fist of his contribution.

[samNewton 0]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

Yes they do - one of the reasons why I am puzzled at this patronising evaluation of Balloch-Bears contribution. There's been a deluge of tut-tutting 'we told you so' comments - who told BB that Spiers and his mhates would make a right arse of themselves in their spectacularly miserable failure?

It's worth repeating that BallochBear made a decent fist of his contribution.

If no Rangers fans had co-operated then the programme's bias would have stood out like a sore thumb to neutral observers.

Do most people in the UK really know that Tom Devine boasts about a 'Catholic takeover' in private yet in public speaks of a country loaded with 'anti-Catholic attitudes'?

Or will they simply take him at face value as an academic who has analysed the topic 'forensically', to use what I believe was Spiers's phrase?

BallochBear and friends were put in a 'do you still beat your wife?' position. Far better not to have had anything to do with the programme rather than allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

One thing in particular arose to me. Why interview the Rangers fans in a pub? Would Spiers have dared to interview Devine or Findlay or anyone else in a pub?

Also, unlike Devine, Findlay and others, they weren't named.

These are classic techniques in broadcasting aimed at instilling a respectable mainstream/hardline extremist dichotomy in the minds of viewers/listeners.

What is beginning to become galling is that several posters said from the outset that this would be a stitch-up. BallochBear - ostensibly on behalf of Spiers - said that it wouldn't be. The almost unanimous view is that it was a hatchet-job, although some people believe it may have backfired. (I don't think it did.)

It also occurs to me that BallochBear was misled as to the presence of people like Devine and Findlay. I believe that this should be emphasised rather than ignored.

[Briton 394]

Aye? Well, I want to know why it's apparently ok for those greetin' faced hypocrites to tear the head of OUR religion to pieces - HRH The Queen - but cry as if mortally wounded if we dish it out to their pope?

Stepping cautiously into waters I'm not familiar with - since when was the Queen head of the Church of Scotland? Is that right? I never knew that at all. I understood the CoS to be leaning toward the Congregationalist, with an elected Moderator serving a term of a year, and various delegates forming working councils to undertake policy work when needed. Is she really Head?

HRH, Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

The faith in question is ours - Protestant.

Nope. The title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to Henry VIII by the Pope, ironically as a reward for his treatise against Martin Luther. The English Sovereign has held the title ever since and it has nothing to do with Protestantism or the Reformation.

BTW....isn't your 'faith' Christianity?

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

Yes they do - one of the reasons why I am puzzled at this patronising evaluation of Balloch-Bears contribution. There's been a deluge of tut-tutting 'we told you so' comments - who told BB that Spiers and his mhates would make a right arse of themselves in their spectacularly miserable failure?

It's worth repeating that BallochBear made a decent fist of his contribution.

If no Rangers fans had co-operated then the programme's bias would have stood out like a sore thumb to neutral observers.

Do most people in the UK really know that Tom Devine boasts about a 'Catholic takeover' in private yet in public speaks of a country loaded with 'anti-Catholic attitudes'?

Or will they simply take him at face value as an academic who has analysed the topic 'forensically', to use what I believe was Spiers's phrase?

BallochBear and friends were put in a 'do you still beat your wife?' position. Far better not to have had anything to do with the programme rather than allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

One thing in particular arose to me. Why interview the Rangers fans in a pub? Would Spiers have dared to interview Devine or Findlay or anyone else in a pub?

Also, unlike Devine, Findlay and others, they weren't named.

These are classic techniques in broadcasting aimed at instilling a respectable mainstream/hardline extremist dichotomy in the minds of viewers/listeners.

What is beginning to become galling is that several posters said from the outset that this would be a stitch-up. BallochBear - ostensibly on behalf of Spiers - said that it wouldn't be. The almost unanimous view is that it was a hatchet-job, although some people believe it may have backfired. (I don't think it did.)

It also occurs to me that BallochBear was misled as to the presence of people like Devine and Findlay. I believe that this should be emphasised rather than ignored.

Excellent post.

[HighlandBear 1]

I made a point of not listening to the programme, as soon as i heard spiers had something to do with it, it was only ever gonna go one way. A stitch up.

The sooner ALL bears realise what spiers is, the better and start ignoring the piece of vermin. do not buy any paper he contributes too, listen to any radio shows, watch any Tv shows he is on, he will soon get sick of his agenda when editors start to disown the abhorant piece of shit.

By engaging in conversation with this clown all you were doing was digging a hole for Rangers fans. The fact that it was done near 2 weeks before it was actually aired really should have spoken volumes for those getting involved.

I can see your point(somewhat blurred though)of going on to stick up for us, but this man needs ignored by The Rangers Family, and he will eventually go away, when his work dries up.

We will never get a balanced view of Bears on any programme he has a hand in & the quicker this is realised the better...

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Nope. The title 'Defender of the Faith' was given to Henry VIII by the Pope, ironically as a reward for his treatise against Martin Luther. The English Sovereign has held the title ever since and it has nothing to do with Protestantism or the Reformation.

BTW....isn't your 'faith' Christianity?

I think you better let The Queen know, Briton. From the Royal website

In the United Kingdom, The Queen's title includes the words 'Defender of the Faith'.

In the United Kingdom, The Queen's title includes the words 'Defender of the Faith'.

This means Her Majesty has a specific role in both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.

As far as I know, the CoE & CoS only represent Protestantism.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

Yes they do - one of the reasons why I am puzzled at this patronising evaluation of Balloch-Bears contribution. There's been a deluge of tut-tutting 'we told you so' comments - who told BB that Spiers and his mhates would make a right arse of themselves in their spectacularly miserable failure?

It's worth repeating that BallochBear made a decent fist of his contribution.

If no Rangers fans had co-operated then the programme's bias would have stood out like a sore thumb to neutral observers.

Do most people in the UK really know that Tom Devine boasts about a 'Catholic takeover' in private yet in public speaks of a country loaded with 'anti-Catholic attitudes'?

Or will they simply take him at face value as an academic who has analysed the topic 'forensically', to use what I believe was Spiers's phrase?

BallochBear and friends were put in a 'do you still beat your wife?' position. Far better not to have had anything to do with the programme rather than allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

One thing in particular arose to me. Why interview the Rangers fans in a pub? Would Spiers have dared to interview Devine or Findlay or anyone else in a pub?

Also, unlike Devine, Findlay and others, they weren't named.

These are classic techniques in broadcasting aimed at instilling a respectable mainstream/hardline extremist dichotomy in the minds of viewers/listeners.

What is beginning to become galling is that several posters said from the outset that this would be a stitch-up. BallochBear - ostensibly on behalf of Spiers - said that it wouldn't be. The almost unanimous view is that it was a hatchet-job, although some people believe it may have backfired. (I don't think it did.)

It also occurs to me that BallochBear was misled as to the presence of people like Devine and Findlay. I believe that this should be emphasised rather than ignored.

The programme went out on Radio 4. Presumably the show attracted once again an audience typifying the Radio 4 demographic. Are you seriously trying to suggest that only a handful in-the-know bears would have been able to evaluate the content for what it was?

For me, what is really galling are those who think they know better than BallochBear himself. The politest thing I can say about this 'we know better, we told you so' is that said comments are deeply condescending.

[samNewton 0]

Listening again, those on Spiers side sound like real bigots despite his his efforts to vilify us.

Yes they do - one of the reasons why I am puzzled at this patronising evaluation of Balloch-Bears contribution. There's been a deluge of tut-tutting 'we told you so' comments - who told BB that Spiers and his mhates would make a right arse of themselves in their spectacularly miserable failure?

It's worth repeating that BallochBear made a decent fist of his contribution.

If no Rangers fans had co-operated then the programme's bias would have stood out like a sore thumb to neutral observers.

Do most people in the UK really know that Tom Devine boasts about a 'Catholic takeover' in private yet in public speaks of a country loaded with 'anti-Catholic attitudes'?

Or will they simply take him at face value as an academic who has analysed the topic 'forensically', to use what I believe was Spiers's phrase?

BallochBear and friends were put in a 'do you still beat your wife?' position. Far better not to have had anything to do with the programme rather than allow yourself to be put on the defensive.

One thing in particular arose to me. Why interview the Rangers fans in a pub? Would Spiers have dared to interview Devine or Findlay or anyone else in a pub?

Also, unlike Devine, Findlay and others, they weren't named.

These are classic techniques in broadcasting aimed at instilling a respectable mainstream/hardline extremist dichotomy in the minds of viewers/listeners.

What is beginning to become galling is that several posters said from the outset that this would be a stitch-up. BallochBear - ostensibly on behalf of Spiers - said that it wouldn't be. The almost unanimous view is that it was a hatchet-job, although some people believe it may have backfired. (I don't think it did.)

It also occurs to me that BallochBear was misled as to the presence of people like Devine and Findlay. I believe that this should be emphasised rather than ignored.

The programme went out on Radio 4. Presumably the show attracted once again an audience typifying the Radio 4 demographic. Are you seriously trying to suggest that only a handful in-the-know bears would have been able to evaluate the content for what it was?

For me, what is really galling are those who think they know better than BallochBear himself. The politest thing I can say about this 'we know better, we told you so' is that said comments are deeply condescending.

I honestly believe few people down south understand the intricacies of the background to Old Firm rivalry and that some will definitely have fallen for the propaganda. Many people have a tendency to take things at face value.

In labelling the views of posters who warned about the dangers of this programme 'condescending', you omit to mention the names they were called before the programme went out. In the event, 'galling' as it might be to you, BallochBear's guarantees were worth nothing and some of us actually did 'know better'.

Much better to be right and called names than being wrong and made to look foolish.

If BallochBear is being taken at face value, then I think he should clarify what his relationship with Graham Spiers is and whether it has changed in light of events

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I honestly believe few people down south understand the intricacies of the background to Old Firm rivalry and that some will definitely have fallen for the propaganda. Many people have a tendency to take things at face value.

In labelling the views of posters who warned about the dangers of this programme 'condescending', you omit to mention the names they were called before the programme went out. In the event, 'galling' as it might be to you, BallochBear's guarantees were worth nothing and some of us actually did 'know better'.

Much better to be right and called names than being wrong and made to look foolish.

If BallochBear is being taken at face value, then I think he should clarify what his relationship with Graham Spiers is and whether it has changed in light of events

Sam - I didn't omit any names because I don't know who you refer to or about name calling before the programme, and I'm not certain what you mean about BallochBear and his relationship with Spiers. Sounds like there is more to this than meets the eye, and certainly more than I know of.

With that acknowledged, you'll understand I could only evaluate the programme on what was presented. I felt the bears and McQuarrie made a decent contribution with the Rev in particular very able to reject some of the more idiotic claims. If we agree for a moment that this was intended as a stitch up (and, yes, I know Spiers said Rangers have a much greater problem) then Spiers failed.

Not least because he tellingly unable to credibly pin down why his assertion that The Rangers are, ahem, 'worse'.

Lastly, I am least concerned about the radio 4 audience being taken in or duped by the bias - I felt it was self-evident throughout and was in fact Spiers' biggest failure of all.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

I honestly believe few people down south understand the intricacies of the background to Old Firm rivalry and that some will definitely have fallen for the propaganda. Many people have a tendency to take things at face value.

In labelling the views of posters who warned about the dangers of this programme 'condescending', you omit to mention the names they were called before the programme went out. In the event, 'galling' as it might be to you, BallochBear's guarantees were worth nothing and some of us actually did 'know better'.

Much better to be right and called names than being wrong and made to look foolish.

If BallochBear is being taken at face value, then I think he should clarify what his relationship with Graham Spiers is and whether it has changed in light of events

Sam - I didn't omit any names because I don't know who you refer to or about name calling before the programme, and I'm not certain what you mean about BallochBear and his relationship with Spiers. Sounds like there is more to this than meets the eye, and certainly more than I know of.

With that acknowledged, you'll understand I could only evaluate the programme on what was presented. I felt the bears and McQuarrie made a decent contribution with the Rev in particular very able to reject some of the more idiotic claims. If we agree for a moment that this was intended as a stitch up (and, yes, I know Spiers said Rangers have a much greater problem) then Spiers failed.

Not least because he tellingly unable to credibly pin down why his assertion that The Rangers are, ahem, 'worse'.

Lastly, I am least concerned about the radio 4 audience being taken in or duped by the bias - I felt it was self-evident throughout and was in fact Spiers' biggest failure of all.

I had a look through the last few weeks of posts on the Radio 4 board and it never registered once.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

I had a look through the last few weeks of posts on the Radio 4 board and it never registered once.

I wonder what that tells us about the listeners interest in the subject in the first place. Mibbe Spiers' joylessly prosaic monotony had them switching stations in droves. Or, more likely, nodding off over their Horlicks.

And after listening again - I'm a bit surprised that Spiers' inveterate, intellectual snobbery doesn't generate more ire. His continued reference to semi-literate fans as a contributing factor to his view of Rangers screams volumes about his tawdry, ineffectual style and his pomposity as a man. How telling that he finds himself more at ease in aligning himself with the poisonous bias of the likes of Findlay and Devine. Indeed, he gushingly refers to Devine as 'Scotland's most respected historian'.

Aye, right.

[Jimenez 1]

I had a look through the last few weeks of posts on the Radio 4 board and it never registered once.

I wonder what that tells us about the listeners interest in the subject in the first place. Mibbe Spiers' joylessly prosaic monotony had them switching stations in droves. Or, more likely, nodding off over their Horlicks.

And after listening again - I'm a bit surprised that Spiers' inveterate, intellectual snobbery doesn't generate more ire. His continued reference to semi-literate fans as a contributing factor to his view of Rangers screams volumes about his tawdry, ineffectual style and his pomposity as a man. How telling that he finds himself more at ease in aligning himself with the poisonous bias of the likes of Findlay and Devine. Indeed, he gushingly refers to Devine as 'Scotland's most respected historian'.

Aye, right.