47blue
Well-Known Member
I detest them with an abiding passion.Winging it for 14 yrs
at least
I detest them with an abiding passion.Winging it for 14 yrs
at least
This, I think:
IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.
There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.
Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.
The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.
In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?
Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.
If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?
It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.
I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.
Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.
I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.
Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.
The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.
Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.
The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.
If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?
Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
Timing is everything in politics and the weekend played right into their hands........as was the plan from the outset.This is the key point of the weekend.
The SNP along with every Rangers hater in Scotland was desperate for George Square to happen on Saturday.
It was all so easily avoidable, but the SNP and GCC didn’t want to avoid it as they knew how valuable a tool it would be for political posturing when the inevitable happened.
And no axe to grindThat is a great article and reminds us there are still people with common sense in Scotland.
Don’t forget that 30k of TGFFITW wanted a refund.The other issue at play here is that Celtic are also being hammered by the SNP by blocking fans coming back.
It is also costing Celtic as much as anyone else, especially with ST renewals coming up after the season they have had as well. In the space of 18 months, they will likely have went from having tens of millions in the bank to being in debt, certainly in terms of o/s transfer payments and bank loans. And that is in small part due to the SNP.
We may not have much common ground with the Yahoos, but this is one of them, and one which should be capitalised on and used against the SNP.
It is like reading an adult's take on the matter.That is a great article and reminds us there are still people with common sense in Scotland.
He is a Prod that supports The Filth.A Celtic fan, but a clever guy who holds himself above the general hatred of others in his community.
This, I think:
IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.
There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.
Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.
The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.
In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?
Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.
If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?
It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.
I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.
Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.
I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.
Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.
The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.
Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.
The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.
If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?
Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
This would have worked perfectly. It was a fantastic idea but unfortunately it didn’t fit with the primary aim of being able to have a go at big bad Rangers after the event.Rangers proposed a plan to have 10k season ticket holders inside the stadium over 4 different days to negate any gatherings after Saturday’s game.
As we know the authorities knocked this back.
Given the authorities unhappiness with events in George Square after the title was first clinched I’m minded of the below quote from Einstein
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
So much commonsense in the one article.This, I think:
IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.
There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.
Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.
The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.
In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?
Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.
If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?
It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.
I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.
Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.
I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.
Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.
The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.
Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.
The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.
If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?
Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
As long as we have people in the mindset of, “I’ll do what I like”, without a care for the consequences then we will not move on from an endless cycle of shooting ourselves in the foot.Let us be of no doubt, the whole scenario on Saturday was channelled by the SnatziP as a major propaganda stunt.
We all knew where and when our support would congregate and party, so why not simply open Ibrox?
Certainly, some would have gone to George Sq anyway to re-state our position of recovering Glasgow from the bheasts but in far less and more easily manageable numbers.
This is a very sinister state of affairs and we, as a support, must realise we are being de-humanised and politically targeted by the Roman Church appeasing Govt and their state police.
How we go about being smarter and more organised is for Bears savvier than me, but we must start fighting fire with fire and becoming far more disciplined and streetwise.
Rangers missed a trick by not revealing that the clubs suggestion had been rejected, with no compromise offered.This was Manchester all over again. The authorities knew it was going to happen and chose to ignore it. The statement Rangers put out would have been run past Useless and co, after the celebrations when we clinched the league. To me it said "your not supposed to do it but we know you are "
We now find out SNP blocked a sensible plan that would have pleased fans and would have been easier to police. Why? Because they can't make an unpopular decision to their voters. Big, bad bunch of (mainly) Unionists getting to enjoy themselves.
Good article, has the threat of strict liability maybe encouraged this response from BW?
Indeed.. in an article which overall is very good, I thought this point was excellent and I did LOL for realA superb article.
The fact its by a Celtic director will have Humza's head in a spin.
Wilson has put his head well above the parapet here. But he can see what the snp are trying to do and its a bigger issue than football rivalry.
If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?
Negligence is the word to describe it.That's an excellent article. At last we have someone in the media spelling it all out. The madness of knowing there would be anything between 10,000 - 20,000 of our fans out in the city on Saturday. Yet not allowing them into an outdoor arena to see what it was they wanted to celebrate. Thereby meaning they had to find other outdoor places to go.
It's incredible incompetence and an example of the stupidity of the government. If thousands of people are going to gather anyway, put them somewhere that you can control better and, ultimately, the actual place they want to be.
...and how much was deliberately engineered?
The same people were equally angry when a demonstration was broke up in England the following day with force.The SNP and other Rangers haters were furious at the first title celebrations. Furious that there was no police battering people, furious that thousands gathered waving Union Jacks and having a good time. So they turned to "oh but what about the benches" for some uproad. They were not happy, they wanted pictures of police battering Rangers fans and something to cling onto for political points.
That's what Saturday and the aftermath is all about.
A bitter, divisive and wholly sinister political party.
Was that the thread on it yesterday?Every morning on the BBC website there's an article showing the front pages of all the papers today.
I notice that Celtic Director and former Labour MP Brian Wilson has a piece in The Herald today on page 14, advertised on their front page with the line "What did the SNP expect in George Square".
I can't see it online yet. Wondering whether it's another hatchet article on our fans being bigots, or whether it might be someone finally pointing out the inevitability of there being a title party that involved a few drinking too much and getting out of hand.
Anyone buy that paper and able to give more detail?
The Herald front page is the 5th one down on this BBC website page.
Scotland's papers: 'Life should mean life' and vaccine refuseniks
The sentencing of sex offender Graham McGill and Scots missing jab appointments make the front pages.www.bbc.co.uk
I have never been a Brian Wilson fan, but he does absolutely nail it with this particular article.That is a really good and well-reasoned article. The 'bigger picture' closing line is especially astute - there is no bigger picture when it comes to Rangers, just recrimination and small mindedness.
Non executive director, he was a Labour MP fir 18 years and obviously sees right through the SNP.Is he a current director? He’s getting cancelled big time if he is!
This, I think:
IT may be unfashionable to point out but football can create really joyous occasions. Take last Saturday’s FA Cup Final at Wembley with 21,500 people in the stadium, an intimation that normality is again conceivable.
There was an emotional quality to the singing of Abide With Me, dedicated to victims of the pandemic. “When other helpers fail and comforts flee; Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me”. Old words with special meaning as people came together after so long, in this way.
Then there was the game itself, turning on two acts of beauty – the goal from Youri Tielemans which won it and the save from Kasper Schmeichel that thwarted Chelsea. So Leicester, one of our cities hardest hit by the pandemic, had its morale lifted to the heavens.
The occasion was possible through a balanced approach to risk. Putting 21,500 people into Wembley’s open air must carry a scintilla of risk. But keeping them out and playing this special game behind closed doors would surely have done far more harm than good.
In Scotland, such thinking is taboo. Even before the latest Glasgow shutdown, there were to be just 600 supporters inside Hampden for the Scottish Cup Final. Now the vast terraces will be empty. To what good effect or elimination of risk, I wonder?
Last Friday I was in Glasgow Airport, a place of eerie silence these days but suddenly raucous sound announced the arrival of a flight from Belfast which disgorged a platoon of Rangers tops, clearly here for a party. I should make clear the colour of tops is irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.
If anyone had doubts, this confirmed that the following day’s celebrations were going to be a big event attracting supporters from far and near. Given that entry to Ibrox stadium was precluded, the logic pointed to a big event somewhere else – ie the streets, bridges and squares of Glasgow. Who had decided that this was a good – or at least, less bad – idea?
It seemed basic common sense – which would have applied equally regardless of which club had something to celebrate – that the thousands congregating in Glasgow should be allowed to do so in their preferred environment, their own stadium. The choice was not between whether or not people would congregate; only where.
I have still to hear any rational explanation of why it was thought preferable for this to happen in the aforementioned streets, bridges and squares where, as soon transpired, absolutely no rules would apply, than within the confines of a stadium where they all wanted to be and within which some degree of regulation would have been possible.
Then, while I was waiting for my flight, a friend in the hospitality industry phoned in despair to tell me about the latest disaster – the decision not to move Glasgow down to level 2. At this point, the contrast between what everyone knew was going to happen the following day and the latest extension of Glasgow’s lockdown moved from being merely irrational to grotesque.
I have never quite understood why it is forbidden to have a glass of wine with a meal within permitted hours. However, the idea this would continue to be banned in Glasgow on public health grounds while the same politicians and experts had put exclusion from a football stadium before all the blatantly obvious risks inherent in the alternative now appeared incomprehensible and irresponsible.
Yet who does one turn to for an explanation? Who can the beleaguered hospitality industry ask for the right of appeal, based on reason? In what respect is the public health advice in England different to that in Scotland? There are so many questions and after more than a year of this, so few detailed, satisfactory answers.
The decision makers hide behind the mantra that anyone who challenges their edicts is less interested than themselves in public health or protecting the community. That has never been true and should have been called out long before now. The longer this goes on, the more urgent the need for scrutiny.
Keeping Glasgow closed is a blunt instrument which fails to recognise vast differences within its boundaries. Concentrating on postcode areas seems more sensible than relying on boundaries which were drawn in the 1990s for entirely different reasons – primarily to keep more prosperous areas out of Glasgow.
The idea that people are not going to travel from Glasgow for a meal in Bearsden or Kilmacolm does not accord with reality. So the major impact of this blanket ban within the confines of the city is not to limit the spread of the virus but to put another nail in the coffins of good, responsible businesses that are struggling to survive.
If the politicians believe their own rhetoric, why did they not act last Friday to limit the public health damage from the Rangers party? Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf could have made a recording of his pious strictures to be released around 6pm. and then taken the rest of Saturday off. What did he expect in George Square? Community singing of Abide with Me?
Ditto the First Minister who should surely have seen the need for containment within her own constituency? The lesson is that while it is easy to ban things it is within your authority to ban, a greater talent is required for seeing a bigger picture – and that is what they made a complete mess of last weekend.
In George Square for 7hrs + with no facilities or any entertainment.That's an excellent article. At last we have someone in the media spelling it all out. The madness of knowing there would be anything between 10,000 - 20,000 of our fans out in the city on Saturday. Yet not allowing them into an outdoor arena to see what it was they wanted to celebrate. Thereby meaning they had to find other outdoor places to go.
It's incredible incompetence and an example of the stupidity of the government. If thousands of people are going to gather anyway, put them somewhere that you can control better and, ultimately, the actual place they want to be.
I would go further and say some of them are really thick.We are governed by the most talentless buffoons in our history.
Totally and absolutely.I would go further and say some of them are really thick.
I think he also wrote the Official History of Celtic (well the football part anyway)Brian Wilson is consistent in what he puts in the Herald.
He puts it right up the SNP in every article and never misses them.
Must admit I never knew he was a Cellic director,and you know what it disnae matter.
It shows that you dont need to be bluenose or a Protestant to see the SNP for the Facist control freaks they are.
Possibly they were worried it might escalate the issue with us fans and wanted to keep it celebratory only.Rangers missed a trick by not revealing that the clubs suggestion had been rejected, with no compromise offered.
Rangers FC needs to stop being so “nice” in all of this.
If it's the Labour MP, then Wilson is pure Rangers hating filth.Wilson is surprising me,
one of the few, and he’ll be copping a lot of flak for speaking the truth
Every half intelligent person knows this. So nationalists obviously don't.This x 100.
And I think we are at the point where if anyone at Rangers thought that a newly elected Nationalist administration were going to play nicely with the biggest symbol of Unionism as far as the eye can see, then we need someone else’s input into such decisions.Possibly they were worried it might escalate the issue with us fans and wanted to keep it celebratory only.
I suspect they’re protecting the brand, just doing it quietly. Doncaster not being at the trophy ceremony has brought me to that opinion.And I think we are at the point where if anyone at Rangers thought that a newly elected Nationalist administration were going to play nicely with the biggest symbol of Unionism as far as the eye can see, then we need someone else’s input into such decisions.
We needed clarity and protection for the club & supporters from the type ofnsocial media napalming that we have been treated to since Wednesday.
Protecting the brand involves more than chasing up a few folk selling bootleg scarves.