The Daily Record won credit for scooping the off-field story of the week, multiple investigations into singing by Celtic fans, but others are beginning to ask who gave the newspaper details of a police investigation.
The stories broke in an unusual manner, with SFA referee and policeman, Eddie Smith, named as the person who reported Celtic fans to Uefa and the SPL. The officer made what looks like an inexplicable decision after some confrontations inside Celtic Park, without mentioning a word of his concerns to the Celtic security people during the game – the normal procedure for such incidents.
Smith, who has Celtic supporting credentials, was named, providing the perfect foil to deflect accusations that this was some sort of Masonic conspiracy, which it was not. The entire episode is a classic internecine dispute among Celtic supporters, but with the comments made to Uefa, the story was parcelled up for the Record by a Strathclyde Police spokesman.
The Daily Record reported, “A spokesman for Strathclyde Police said: “For Eddie [Smith] to speak to the delegate after the match is nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, it is standard practice””. This is completely irrelevant.
Celtic’s retort in the same article got to the heart of the issue – why the police are speaking to Uefa and the media but not speaking to the club: “This is quite unprecedented as no issues were raised to the club during the match and the police didn’t inform us directly about their concerns.”
Control over media communications from Strathclyde Police falls to Director of Communications, Rob Shorthouse, (pictured on the left). Shorthouse, whose own favourite team have taken a reputational battering from Uefa in recent seasons, despite silence from the police, should be concerned that the force have given newspapers material for three days of screaming headlines instead of addressing the key concern about departure from established procedure. This has only inflamed a volatile situation between Celtic fans and officers on the ground. Shorthouse, who held a similar position at the SFA until two years ago, will be familiar with the sensitivities of football issues.
Perhaps a Freedom of Information request will reveal who leaked a story that laid out details which reflected so badly on Celtic. All we want is equal treatment, as a former chairman once commented.
1,077 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- ...
- 28
- »
UTLR paranoidCSC :>)
Ernie I agree as I’d rather not do the Huns work for them.
V
S69
Aye tit for tat. Yer man is as rabid as leggo, he is seriously deluded.
They are desperate Sean, truly desperate.
I was talking with my neighbour earlier today, a Real football man, has a healthy dislike for the Catalans, and that’s as far as it goes a healthy dislike, not a hint of hate, and he has seen the coverage about the IRA crap, and he dismissed it like any decent forign would, they know who we are, they understand that there are problems in scotland and we are the oppressed.
I have no worries that outwith scotland the people who matter care, they know who the club are that wreck the citys that they rampage in, they know that we are not the same, and this goes way beyond Catholic countrys in europe, I have Dutch, German, Swede..etc mates who all know who the scurge of the footballing world are, and it’s not Celtic.
Away bhoycott, full house Celtic Park, it’s the only language these gets understand! Stop giving them money( Inc DR, SM), let them crawl to us! HH!
Guys apologies once again for posting the link.
I was trying to email it and put it on CQN instead.
Britney doesnt seem to think its much of a story!
Even Spiers has given this rabid chimp a slap
GrahamSpiers Graham Spiers @
@TheAwayEnd @ChrisGraham76 This ‘IRA band’ story is thoroughly ludicrous. Chris doesn’t sleep at night for obsessing about the IRA…
seanbhoy69
You didn’t post it, i did.
Its hardly watergate mate
seanbhoy
The genie is out of the bottle. Late apologies do what?
Lads is this what i waited up for ha ha ha geez a break….
Right seanbhoy get talking to paul and joe from csa and lets get these orange marches gone forever, if they wan’t to go toe to toe then I’m ready for the fight so lets get heads together and get a plan in place..
Shock horror
Irish man with band in a pub in Ireland sings republican songs
Were’s the problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v–fTVAWE8
A not so subtle hint of why there is a transnational desire for quiet, compliant consumers with no critical thinking or self reflection tendencies….
Bankers of the World United Long ago….
notthebus
Hail Hail
ElDiegoBhoy
They do nothing mate, I just dont usually post links that`s all.
Was just trying to do too many things at the one time.
Legal Defence Fund launched
Published on Wednesday 16th November, 2011 by Celtic Trust
Many of you will be aware of the case of the young boy from Section 111 who was held in prison from Friday of last week till late last night when he was released, on the orders of the Lord Advocate, from Polmont Prison. All this for the terrible crime of singing a song at a football match two weeks previously. This case highlights the fear that many of us have around both the introduction of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill and the zealous nature of the policing of football in the run-up to it.
Many of us are clear that if we cannot defeat this Bill then we will need to be ready to defend Celtic fans on a case by case basis and some of the existing supporters’ organisations have committed themselves to this. However, there have been a number of calls for a Defence Fund to be set up and this has now been done.
The FAC Legal Defence Fund has now been launched. A bank account is being set up which will have as its main signatories Alex Mosson, the former Lord Provost of Glasgow and a member of the Board of the Celtic Trust; John Andrews, the President of the Celtic Supporters’ Association and Alan Horne, the President of the Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs. In the meantime, you will be able donate via Paypal on those sites belonging to the member organisations of FAC who have this facility ie the Celtic Trust, the CSA, the Affiliation, the Irish Association and the Green Brigade.
If you are donating to the Fund in this way, please remember to indicate that the donation is for the FAC LDF. If you forget to do this on Paypal then a simple email with the details to the relevant organisation should suffice.
The Celtic Trust paypal button can be found at the bottom of the home page and is marked Donate.
seanbhoy69
Ditto , keep up the good work
I wonder if this chap, Shorthouse is a friends of a certain H Dallas. Their paths may have crossed at some point.
The list of foes at the SFA lengthens.
BBC, Strathclyde Police, who is next?
We have got to be clever here. Confrontation with Police is pointless but talks between club, fan groups and police should be encouraged.
Maybe GB should publish their songbook (in time for Christmas) and get the club to authorise it.
Then we could put the whole thing to bed.
Wonder what the Roll of Honour 3 were singing. The band have a DVD out and they all looked like innocent Celtic songs to me.
Seanbhoy
It was a wee error don’t be worrying about it.
Anyway its a non starter, there’s no actual evidence of song content.
Seanbhoy69
Don’t worry about posting that link. Even the monkey who wrote the original blog admits nothing illegal is happening there.
As for it bringing bad publicity, who cares? As TET wrote, the people of the wider world know the truth anyway, and the opinions of the Scottish press are beneath contempt or concern.
Oops CD
Even if there are pics of a Celtic player or players singing political songs, what is the problem, if it is done in a pub, club or a house party, among friends?
Surely the current controversy is about singing these songs at football grounds, where others claim to be offended. I would prefer that the support refrain from singing pro-IRA songs at the games, but I sure as hell don’t want or expect Celtic people to stop singing them in the pubs pre-match or wherever.
Is this a sign of things to come? ie if the so-called offensive songs disappear from the repertoire at games, will they then move in on what we sing in Celtic pubs and supporters functions,on supporters buses and indeed in our own homes?
notthebus
Did you catch my apologie to you the other week btw ?
WARNING – long post…
The following is my response to the lastest letter back from the Beeb on the Cup Final half-time commentary:
Dear Ms O’Brien,
Re: Sportscene, BBC One, 21st May 2011
Thank you for your detailed letter dated 9th November 2011 responding to my appeal to the BBC Trust following the decision by the Editorial Complaints Unit not to uphold my complaint.
I note and concur with your decision that there is “sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case for the Executive to answer on the accuracy of the use of the word “sectarian””. However, I would like to take the opportunity to challenge some of your reasoning with regard to certain aspects of the appeal you did not consider “to have a reasonable prospect of success”. I also confirm that I would indeed like the Trustees to review your decision not to proceed with the parts of the appeal I have identified below.
1. The contention that the BBC had broadcast an inaccurate statement of which it had no proof and had therefore reported hearsay as fact.
You quote the presenter as saying:
“… because those outside who can hear the songs being sung tell me …”.
You reference this statement as making “it clear to the audience that his comments were based upon information that had been supplied to him and that he had not personally verified”. This fact is then utilised to conclude that “viewers would therefore have been able to accord those comments their appropriate weight, and would not have regarded them as statements of fact”. Your logic implies that statements by presenters will only be perceived by an audience as factual where the presenter can and does personally verify the broadcast information. Equally, your interpretation appears to imply that any information acknowledged to be provided to a presenter by others within the broadcasting team will ordinarily be perceived by an audience as conjecture. Neither position is credible or sustainable. If the third party information was not to be interpreted as factual by the audience there would need to have been a caution in the nature of its presentation, not mere acknowledgement of its indirect (from the presenter) source. Had the presenter wished the audience to perceive that sectarian singing by Celtic supporters at this match was not an established fact he would have needed to include some adjectival doubt. He might have prefaced the phrase “sectarian singing” with adjectives such as “alleged”, “possible” or perhaps even “probable”; suffice to say that there was no attempt whatever to qualify the reported sectarian nature of the singing as anything less than an established, albeit by “those outside who can hear the songs”, fact.
Your argument might have more credence if the external sources had been identified in a more restricted way. Had, for example, the presenter said “… Mr X, who can hear the songs being sung, tells me …” it may have been reasonable to imply that an audience could place “appropriate weight” on the subsequent comments. Unfortunately, the phrase “those outside” might just as reasonably be taken to imply all or anyone outside that could hear the songs would infer they were sectarian. This is patently, in the light of the volume of complaints you have received from those who did hear the songs being sung, nothing short of inaccurate. The BBC did indeed broadcast an inaccurate statement of which it had no proof and has therefore reported hearsay as fact. The references to information being received from a third party (to the presenter) and not personally verified by him are wholly inadequate to refute this fact where no effort whatever was made to imply doubt of any kind about the accuracy of the third party information or clarify that the information might be reducible in anyway to individual/s. If “those outside” (potentially any or all of them) who could hear the songs would characterise them as sectarian then they must be sectarian. Audiences would only suspect otherwise if they expected the BBC’s content to be inaccurate or misleading; whilst I might advocate audiences would be wise to adopt such an attitude I’m sure that is not the premise on which you decided that this was not an aspect of my complaint worthy of progression.
2. The means by which the the message that sectarian singing had taken place was reported to the production team and conveyed to the presenter and studio guests.
I note your identification of this issue as an “operational matter” and therefore “a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not usually involve itself”. I would respond my clarifying that my complaint, along with those of fellow complainers, has been directly guided by persons responsible within the BBC at each and every stage of its development. If an important element of the complaints received by the BBC is not a matter which is pertinent to the Trust I would not expect it to be directed at Stage one or Stage Two on a course where it ultimately arrives at the Trust for arbitration. A reasonable expectation, where issues are “the responsibility of the Executive Board” might be that they are appropriately directed to the Executive Board for a response. I would appreciate you ensuring that this aspect of the complaint is now forwarded to the Executive Board for a response and I look forward to receiving an apology for the earlier apparent failure to properly direct aspects of a complaint to the relevant part of the organisation.
3. The accuracy of the message given to the presenter and studio guests
You contend that the Executive’s acknowledgement “that the presenter’s reference to songs in the plural was an inaccurate paraphrase” serves to resolve this issue. Again, I must strongly disagree with your conclusions. The acknowledgement to which you refer certainly serves to establish that the message that sectarian songs in the plural were sung by Celtic supporters is inaccurate. It in no way confirms that that Celtic fans did not sing any sectarian songs, which is the contention within my and fellow complainers’ complaints. The message that Celtic fans engaged in sectarian singing per se was wholly inaccurate and the Executive’s acknowledgement of a mistake in regard to the number of sectarian songs does not resolve the central issue, as you correctly identify, of “whether there had been any sectarian singing at all”. The message was inaccurate and has not been resolved in the admission you identify.
4. The implication of the presenter’s words “the Celtic supporters have been singing some sectarian songs during the first half”.
a). You express your satisfaction that the words quoted above “did not imply that each and every Celtic supporter present had been … singing sectarian songs … as such an implication would have been self-evidently hyperbolic and absurd”. That may or may not be the case but I would certainly contend that the phrase would imply that most, if not each and every last one, of the Celtic supporters were singing in this way. The subsequent words of the guest, exhorting “good fans” to “boo them out, to drown them out” cannot be taken to qualify the words of the presenter as “clarifying that a minority of supporters was involved”. This is since, firstly, the guest’s comments were not delivered as a direct and immediate response to those of the presenter and they were not directly acknowledged as serving that purpose. Secondly, the fact that you rely on the implication that an unrelated exhortation by a guest redefines the meaning of the presenter’s original statement is strong evidence of my own contention that, whilst the presenter’s statement might not mean “each and every” Celtic supporter, it certainly implies most Celtic supporters. For the guest’s exhortation to have the effect you claim it would have needed to be made with direct reference to the earlier inaccurate presenter’s statement and there was no such reference. Furthermore, according to your own earlier logic, the guest’s exhortation, based as it was on third party information not personally verified, would have been perceived by the audience as factual. Finally, the guest’s reference to “good fans” did not clearly identify such fans as present at the match. It could have legitimately have been understood as referring to the potential for “good fans” at some future point to “boo them out, to drown them out”. Indeed, one might argue that if the guest had been referring to a majority of Celtic fans actually present at the match he would have said so.
b). You reject the “statement was a slur on the reputation of Celtic supporters (or even “defamatory”) since “the statement did not refer to any identifiable individual” and therefore there cannot have been “a slur on any individual’s reputation (or, therefore, any “defamation”). Critical to your conclusions is the perspective that the inaccurate phrase “would not have been construed by viewers as denoting each and every Celtic supporter who was present at the match”. The phrase “the Celtic supporters” makes no attempt whatever to distinguish between elements of the Celtic supporters at the game who should not be perceived as having sung “some sectarian songs”. It is perfectly feasible that the audience may have perceived the phrase implies the unspoken descriptor “all” as a precursor. Such a view is no less “hyperbolic and absurd” than the view that the phrase implies the unspoken descriptors “a minority”. The statement could be perceived as implying each and every Celtic supporter at the game, particularly where there is no incontrovertible clarification that a minority is being referenced. As such it was indeed a slur on the reputation of all Celtic supporters at the game.
5. The alleged change in editorial policy in relation to the reporting of allegedly sectarian singing or chanting between the Scottish League Cup Final and the Scottish Cup Final.
My comments in point 2 apply with equal validity to your remarks that “any such change in editorial policy is an operational matter, and is therefore the responsibility of the Executive Board”. I would request the same action and look forward to receiving a similar apology for earlier misdirection of important aspects of the complaint.
6. Fairness
I note that your inaccurate interpretation of Editorial Guideline 6.1., coupled with your flawed perception of the meaning of the phrase at issue (discussed in 4. a) and b). above), is taken to justify your contention that no “complainant has been able to show that they personally have been treated unfairly”. I would strongly contend that your interpretation does not comply with the statement “The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to those our output is about”.
You accept there is a case to answer in respect of the accuracy of the word “sectarian” as a description of the singing of Celtic supporters at the match but you do not accept that the phrase “the Celtic supporters have been singing some sectarian songs” means that Celtic supporters at the match were treated unfairly. This logic is “explained” by the subsequent reference within paragraph 6.1 to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code’s requirement that the BBC “avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or or organisations in programmes”. From your insistence that the phrase “Celtic supporters” cannot imply each and every Celtic supporter at the game flows the conclusion that no one, individual Celtic supporter can show they have been treated unfairly. The problem for your reductionist interpretation are the words between the statement “fair to those our output is about” and Offcom’s requirement for avoiding “unfair treatment of individuals or organisations”. The critical words are “We also have an obligation”. Paragraph 6.1 does not make any link between the requirement for fair treatment of “those our output is about” and the need to establish unfair treatment at an individual or organisational level; indeed the words “we also” strongly suggest that the Offcom requirement is an additional, not a related, duty.
The BBC’s output on the issue at hand was about the Celtic supporters at the game. The presenter’s statement that those same “Celtic supporters have been singing some sectarian songs” can only be unfair if the facts do not support the assertion. If there is a case that use of the word “sectarian” was not accurate, then there is clearly a case that the phrase was “unfair”. The words in the first sentence of paragraph 6.1 refer to “those our output is about”. They do not refer to “each and every one” or “individuals” or “organisations”. If any complainant was a Celtic supporter present at the match (which you do not deny is the case) then the broadcast was about them and the issue of fairness applies and should be considered by the Trustees.
I thank you again for your response and look forward to receiving the Trustee’s decision on my request that they review your decision not to refer the aspects of the appeal I have raised in this letter.
Yours sincerely,
WWC
Doe anyone know what happened to that letter from the Mayor of Barcelona to the S.F.A. and Rangers F.C. after the last visit to his city by the Boys in Blue. Among other things he made it clear that they would not be welcome back there ater their attempted destruction of The Ramblas and their urination in Gaudi’s Cathedral. Did that letter ever see the light of day or do we have to make yet another Freedom of Information request.?
AFTER THE LAST VISIT TO HIS CITY
hamiltontim
Hail Hail mate.
seanbhoy
Don’t think the story is quite as powerful as they imagine.
Anthony Stokes and his father play Irish republican music in Ireland.
Two other Celtic employees have also been in this pub and we have pics (but no video) of them enjoying themselves and singing.
There is then a very large jump of a QED- to reach the charge of they’re bad boys too.
My earnest hope is that people are going to become exhausted by the whataboutery and start to switch off from this playground stuff.
We need to be focusing on ICT and ICT only while this circus blows out.
Alan, Neil and Anthony are doing nothing wrong there.
A nothing story.
Árd Macha
Pujol
Hail Hail amigo.
Seanbhoy69,
I wouldn’t worry about it – non story and the man’s an imbecile.
The “IRA album”??
Here it is – http://www.theplayersbrigade.com/?p=209
A charity record entitled Just Can’t Get Enough, all proceeds in aid of Good Child Foundation. Anthony was singing JCGE, ffs!!!!
Like I said, that blogger and his FF mates are exactly why care in the community didnae work – imbeciles.
This is just the start guys, we MUST stand together if we are to prevail.
Hail! Hail!
DavieL
sftb
Agreed, 3 points on Saturday is a must.
Kevtic
GB offered to meet police to speak about police tactics at the Hibs game. Police refused to discuss. What would you have the GB do? Bend over and say give us it big polis people cause we have sinned.
Jesus Christ (I do not apologise for taking my buddies name in vien) what would you have them do?
MWD
DavieL
Hail Hail mate.
Think thats why the press haven`t run with it.
It`s not for the lack of trying on the part of some people.
Kevtic says:
16 November, 2011 at 23:20
That’s a definite m8 remember the celtic board and fans got rid of 2 of their brothers dougie dougie and dallas so they wan’t revenge…
For any huns looking in…
Film4 just now
“I’LL WEAR NO CONVICTS UNIFORM”
S69
There are countless u tube vids of edjits saying Lenny brings it all on himself, there are countless vids of Celtic players doing what Celtic player do, there are vids of hun directors singing the sash…………
West Wales Celt
Wonderful response. Wonderful persistence. Respect.
I’m afraid they wore me down after their second response.
I know you wont let go. More power to you.
West Wales Celt says:
16 November, 2011 at 23:23
“WARNING – long post…”
Warning short post – thanks for pursuing this
whataboutery is it,
what about the video online of the 5 (yes 5) Hu, eh, Rangers players, singing, jingoist, proscribed, nationalistic, some may say very anti somethings songs.
The blue order cannie be happy I tell ye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P276uoaOC5Y
Seanbhoy
No story there unless there’s video of Donald Finlay type behaviour.
Nothing to get upset about otherwise.
TBB
WWC
No wonder you have not been on the blog much this last week.
Absolutely, totally, wonderfully, brilliant response Sir.
I almost stood up in my living room to applaud your outstanding effort and indefatigability.
Your response mirrors my feelings on the response we received but you sit have put that sense into words I can only dream of.
Once again I will be using your output as reference when I write my response this weekend.
HAIL! HAIL! To you buddy.
MWD would like to buy you a pint next time you are up in paradise.