The lowest of the low wrote that.It's the Guardian, so they're playing to the left wing crowd and to hell with the facts since big, bad Rangers are traditionally bastions of everything they loathe.. A few lowlights:
Born protestant but brought up catholic
Thrown out of Rangers Accordion Band when they find out he's being brought up by catholics.
Involved in the 1961 disaster
Still loved football (and travels to World Cup and European matches, apparently) but lost interest in Rangers
"Rangers hadn’t changed. It was their proud boast entering the 70s that they hadn’t signed a Catholic in nearly 100 years. Celtic, however, were managed by a Protestant."
As a journo, was asked to attend on 2/1/71 so spent 1st half in celtic end and 2nd half near stairway 13.
When Stein equalized, lots of people turned back and tried to make their way back into Ibrox (he states this "would" have happened since he didn't see it himself)
"On the terracing, sober husbands and fathers cheered themselves hoarse. Drunken thugs bayed at the suddenly silent green end of the stadium."
"Jock Stein of Celtic was a tower of strength, along with many of his Parkhead people."
"Those fans whose families had not been affected were loath to criticise Rangers in any way, to the point where the few who did so were regarded as traitors."
Sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism...
And so forth. Best summarised as long on hyperbole, hypothesis & hypocrisy and big on bitterness, bigotry and bile. Rangers weren't blameless but he's got an obvious agenda which he sticks to like superglue.
Hatchet job from someone with an obvious chip on his shoulder trying desperately to prove his lefty credentials to his sandal-wearing friends. File under "Garbage", sub-section "Utter".
Ah, but HE WAS THERE. He therefore knows better than the inquiries who heard evidence from everyone else. HE WAS THERE, therefore Don't Argue. He even says that people "would have" turned around to get back into the ground and then uses this hypothesis to substantiate his own supposition and present it as fact. A Guardian "journalist" of the highest order - "never mind the facts, look at my agenda"It's been proven time and again the Stein equaliser had nothing to do with the crush. The Club should be complaining to IPSO about that disgusting piece.
Correct. Barry Glendenning. A hateful bigot and terrorist sympathiser.I seem to recall one of their senior guys has links to mad phill.
Is that the same one who appears on TalkSPORT?Correct. Barry Glendenning. A hateful bigot and terrorist sympathiser.
I seem to recall one of their senior guys has links to mad phill.
Are these some of the statements in the article?It's the Guardian, so they're playing to the left wing crowd and to hell with the facts since big, bad Rangers are traditionally bastions of everything they loathe.. A few lowlights:
Born protestant but brought up catholic
Thrown out of Rangers Accordion Band when they find out he's being brought up by catholics.
Involved in the 1961 disaster
Still loved football (and travels to World Cup and European matches, apparently) but lost interest in Rangers
"Rangers hadn’t changed. It was their proud boast entering the 70s that they hadn’t signed a Catholic in nearly 100 years. Celtic, however, were managed by a Protestant."
As a journo, was asked to attend on 2/1/71 so spent 1st half in celtic end and 2nd half near stairway 13.
When Stein equalized, lots of people turned back and tried to make their way back into Ibrox (he states this "would" have happened since he didn't see it himself)
"On the terracing, sober husbands and fathers cheered themselves hoarse. Drunken thugs bayed at the suddenly silent green end of the stadium."
"Jock Stein of Celtic was a tower of strength, along with many of his Parkhead people."
"Those fans whose families had not been affected were loath to criticise Rangers in any way, to the point where the few who did so were regarded as traitors."
Sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism...
And so forth. Best summarised as long on hyperbole, hypothesis & hypocrisy and big on bitterness, bigotry and bile. Rangers weren't blameless but he's got an obvious agenda which he sticks to like superglue.
Hatchet job from someone with an obvious chip on his shoulder trying desperately to prove his lefty credentials to his sandal-wearing friends. File under "Garbage", sub-section "Utter".
Anything in quotation marks is lifted directly from his scribblings.Are these some of the statements in the article?
You have the wrong guyCorrect. Barry Glendenning. A hateful bigot and terrorist sympathiser.
He bases his story on the findings of a single sheriff, who awarded over £20k damages to the family of one victim and delivered a "murderous judgement". He also says it was a "test case". If so, then where are all the other cases, if in fact the sheriff was correct? Strangely enough, they don't exist. It was a rogue decision.
Also:
"The verdict ignored my experience that after a last-minute equaliser, the pyramid of bodies had been caused by thousands of fans piling into those trying to get back up a worn stairway that had been a death trap for years. It exonerated Rangers Football Club of direct blame."
Let's look at his experience, as described earlier in the piece"
"When the ball hit the back of the net, those on the dirt exit track tried to push back into the delirious crowd."
He wasn't there, he was in the stadium. In the middle of the crowd. He can't possibly know this.
"Those already halfway down the stairway 13 exit would have shuddered to 100 halts as the air split from the roar of celebration above them, grabbing each other, dancing and jumping up and down on the uneven steps. Some would have stumbled, causing others to trip over them in a mad melee of happy bodies struggling to get past each other back up to the top, just as the ref blew a long blast for time up, doubling everyone’s jubilation."
Again, he wasn't there. I've highlighted where he admits this is supposition on his part, supposition which is at odds with the inquiry findings and the evidence from countless others who were there at the time the crush began.
He then describes what he ACTUALLY saw and experienced, which was being caught up in a moving mass of bodies as they swept towards Stairway 13, and then he saw the pile of bodies midway down. What he didn't see was how it started. He saw only the result, not the cause. He even admits this earlier, yet still sticks to the story that the equalizer caused fans to try to get back into the ground with catastrophic results despite this not being supported by his own evidence! But this doesn't stop him from insisting he was right, despite having no evidence to back it up and despite admitting he couldn't possibly have seen the cause. Let's look at that paragraph again:
"The verdict ignored my experience that after a last-minute equaliser, the pyramid of bodies had been caused by thousands of fans piling into those trying to get back up a worn stairway that had been a death trap for years"
Except "his experience", as described earlier, was nothing of the sort. He didn't see anyone trying to get back in, yet he sticks to this story. Why? Is he trying to say there was a cover-up? Why not point the finger, then? Instead, he's happy with this badly-written, poorly-researched myopic "Rangers are bad and have "The Establishment" in their pocket" drivel which is light on facts and heavy on preconceived bias and virtue signalling.
It's the Guardian, so they're playing to the left wing crowd and to hell with the facts since big, bad Rangers are traditionally bastions of everything they loathe.. A few lowlights:
Born protestant but brought up catholic
Thrown out of Rangers Accordion Band when they find out he's being brought up by catholics.
Involved in the 1961 disaster
Still loved football (and travels to World Cup and European matches, apparently) but lost interest in Rangers
"Rangers hadn’t changed. It was their proud boast entering the 70s that they hadn’t signed a Catholic in nearly 100 years. Celtic, however, were managed by a Protestant."
As a journo, was asked to attend on 2/1/71 so spent 1st half in celtic end and 2nd half near stairway 13.
When Stein equalized, lots of people turned back and tried to make their way back into Ibrox (he states this "would" have happened since he didn't see it himself)
"On the terracing, sober husbands and fathers cheered themselves hoarse. Drunken thugs bayed at the suddenly silent green end of the stadium."
"Jock Stein of Celtic was a tower of strength, along with many of his Parkhead people."
"Those fans whose families had not been affected were loath to criticise Rangers in any way, to the point where the few who did so were regarded as traitors."
Sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism, sectarianism...
And so forth. Best summarised as long on hyperbole, hypothesis & hypocrisy and big on bitterness, bigotry and bile. Rangers weren't blameless but he's got an obvious agenda which he sticks to like superglue.
Hatchet job from someone with an obvious chip on his shoulder trying desperately to prove his lefty credentials to his sandal-wearing friends. File under "Garbage", sub-section "Utter".
He bases his story on the findings of a single sheriff, who awarded over £20k damages to the family of one victim and delivered a "murderous judgement". He also says it was a "test case". If so, then where are all the other cases, if in fact the sheriff was correct? Strangely enough, they don't exist. It was a rogue decision.
Also:
"The verdict ignored my experience that after a last-minute equaliser, the pyramid of bodies had been caused by thousands of fans piling into those trying to get back up a worn stairway that had been a death trap for years. It exonerated Rangers Football Club of direct blame."
Let's look at his experience, as described earlier in the piece"
"When the ball hit the back of the net, those on the dirt exit track tried to push back into the delirious crowd."
He wasn't there, he was in the stadium. In the middle of the crowd. He can't possibly know this.
"Those already halfway down the stairway 13 exit would have shuddered to 100 halts as the air split from the roar of celebration above them, grabbing each other, dancing and jumping up and down on the uneven steps. Some would have stumbled, causing others to trip over them in a mad melee of happy bodies struggling to get past each other back up to the top, just as the ref blew a long blast for time up, doubling everyone’s jubilation."
Again, he wasn't there. I've highlighted where he admits this is supposition on his part, supposition which is at odds with the inquiry findings and the evidence from countless others who were there at the time the crush began.
He then describes what he ACTUALLY saw and experienced, which was being caught up in a moving mass of bodies as they swept towards Stairway 13, and then he saw the pile of bodies midway down. What he didn't see was how it started. He saw only the result, not the cause. He even admits this earlier, yet still sticks to the story that the equalizer caused fans to try to get back into the ground with catastrophic results despite this not being supported by his own evidence! But this doesn't stop him from insisting he was right, despite having no evidence to back it up and despite admitting he couldn't possibly have seen the cause. Let's look at that paragraph again:
"The verdict ignored my experience that after a last-minute equaliser, the pyramid of bodies had been caused by thousands of fans piling into those trying to get back up a worn stairway that had been a death trap for years"
Except "his experience", as described earlier, was nothing of the sort. He didn't see anyone trying to get back in, yet he sticks to this story. Why? Is he trying to say there was a cover-up? Why not point the finger, then? Instead, he's happy with this badly-written, poorly-researched myopic "Rangers are bad and have "The Establishment" in their pocket" drivel which is light on facts and heavy on preconceived bias and virtue signalling.
That link doesn’t seem to have worked. Takes you an error page on the guardian. I wonder if it’s been pulled already.
Same mate. Says sorry they haven’t been able to serve the page requested. I’ll google it. Cheers.
Yeah spotted that. Don't think the link has been taken down more something with how the forum handles the link itself. Article definitely still up.Same mate. Says sorry they haven’t been able to serve the page requested. I’ll google it. Cheers.
Something like this, you mean?Stand by for next week's 4-page special: "How Celtic Facilitated a Paedophile Ring for 40yrs, then Subsequently Fought Tooth and Nail to Deny or Even Acknowledge that it Ever Occurred".
Don't hold your breath waiting for that one folks.
The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.I'd add that I don't have any in-depth knowledge of the disaster (it happened 14 months before I was born) and I'm sure there are others (such as deedle) who have far more knowledge than me of what the stadium was like at the time and can give an accurate report of the stadium, fan behaviour in general and the events of the day itself. I'm simply highlighting the inaccuracies and contradictions in his article. I'm also not interested in giving the Rangers board a clean bill of health either; I personally think they could and should have done more to make changes before that terrible day based on what had happened in the decade previously - how much more is difficult to say since I wasn't around at the time and can only look back with the benefit of hindsight. But that is a million miles from this article and the opinion of the hack behind it.
Ahhh, good Lord, I stand well and truly corrected. Although I would hazard a guess that both articles weren't written by the same vile bag of cat's piss that wrote the Ibrox Disaster fabrication?Something like this, you mean?
'I have been quiet for 50 years': standing up against sexual abuse at Celtic Boys Club
The long read: Many of the perpetrators have been jailed for their crimes. Now a number of survivors and their families claim that officials at Celtic knew about the sexual abuse and did nothingwww.theguardian.com
The insurance company entered negotiations with the families and the matter was settled out of court.Quite scathing of all things Rangers. The article states the club exonerated itself of responsibility and fought against financially supporting the victims families.
The journalist clearly has an agenda, which is unsurprising given it’s The Guardian. In addition to the points outlined above by Rudolph, the other parts that stood out for me were:
Celtic founded to feed the poor narrative
Rangers fans aggressive and ignorant, even when stepping over dead bodies.
The random and completely unnecessary comment about Rangers now being owned by a different company.
as usual with The Guardian, it’s all about appealing to their middle class sneering champagne socialist readers.
I seem to recall one of their senior guys has links to mad phill.
No, wrong guy.Correct. Barry Glendenning. A hateful bigot and terrorist sympathiser.
No mate, Henry McDonald wrote the Boys Club piece. I believe the story was also featured on their podcast last week. I don't think it'd be unfair to assume Hollicom (or similar) have 'demanded' the Ibrox Disaster hatchet job to even things up, I hope I'm wrong though as we expect better standards from the broadsheets in this country.Ahhh, good Lord, I stand well and truly corrected. Although I would hazard a guess that both articles weren't written by the same vile bag of cat's piss that wrote the Ibrox Disaster fabrication?
It's the Guardian.Sectarianism is 1 of the main pieces of the article for some reason. I don't really know what that subject has to do with 66 people dying. Also very critical of the people in charge of the club at the time.
I remember all of those places well. So many times being carried along with the feet off the ground for some distance.All the grounds in that era were potential death traps.
I remember when I started going to football from 1980 that egress from the game was ,to put it mildly, uncomfortable and disturbing.
Leaving parkhead after the game we were always met with a horrendous crush as we squeezed along narrow gangways leading to the steep steps out of the ground.
Hampden was a filthy place with seas of mud leading to the turnstiles and rotting railway sleepers for terracing.
Even in the late 80's you still had the crush at the back of the terracing at easter road as you squeezed down a steep hill to the exits.
Tannadice was a nightmare with the ultra, ultra steep terracing and leaving from the stands was a nightmare as you tried to squeeze your way out of narrow corridors under their ramshackle stand.
Finally, I can never forget the nightmare of trying to get out of Brockville as you squeezed out of narrow exits in the pitch black.
I cannot recall the detail but an NUJ link I think?What are his links?