Quantcast

Salmond, MacAskill, Sturgeon police state quest crushed

911

It should be a matter of great personal pride to the football fans, manty of them Celtic fans, who campaigned against the Offensive Behaviour at Football’ Bill from the outset, and then against the Act, faced off against the Scottish Government at Holyrood yesterday and won.

Their satisfaction will be shared by James Kelly MSP, who raised the Bill in Parliament, which yesterday brought down the Act.  Well done to him and his colleagues.

This nonsense was never about ending sectarianism, neither the SNP Government, nor the police, have moved an inch towards this goal since Alex Salmond first raised the subject.

Sectarianism in football grounds was given life in 2011 by then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who sat through 90 minutes of The Billy Boys at Hampden, before congratulating fans on their performance.  The Billy Boys returned to stadiums that day and since then, we have lived through an SNP endorsed open season.

The Act was a familiar mix of populist rhetoric and right wing police action so common with those who put identity politics before people.

After their defeat, the Government acknowledged they would recognise will of Parliament, despite ignoring the same will when an earlier vote on the Act was passed.  Nicola Sturgeon did everything in her power to prevent this defeat.

Salmond has moved on to his spiritual home-broadcaster, where proto-right wing nationalists get to claim credentials of the left without challenge.  Today we have a government and police force which have been made accountable to the law and the democratic will.  The need for vigilance against extreme right wing policies continues.

Well done again to all those who campaigned so successfully.

Click Here for Comments >
Share.

About Author

911 Comments
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24

  1. BOBBY MURDOCH'S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS on

    HAPPY HOOOOOOPY BIRTHDAY to

     

     

     

    FAIRHILLBHOY,Snr!!!!!!

     

     

     

    Just a year behind my Dad. But yesterday you were two years behind him-yer catching up!

     

     

     

    I hope you have a great day,oul’ yin. Fellas your age made us what we are.

  2. AULDHEID on16TH MARCH 2018 11:35 AM

     

     

    BMCUW

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In case BRTH is busy

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Yup.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    UEFA verbally agreed the 30 June submission with SFA ( so UEFA were told something that let them agree) but rules required a further submission in light of events (like SO’s calling in August 2011 the month before the conversation) and RFC were effectively coached on what to say in the Sept submission.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    What they did say contained an additional porkie pie but as was suggested UEFA never picked it up.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I can hear your brain gears grinding from here.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    A few weeks back I put forward a scenario based on the above and a letter from Celtic of May 2012 based on which Neganon2 said I was untrustworthy because it explained PL’s stance. To be fair to Neganon2 he didn’t have all the information but when the Comp Off is done I think that scenario will stand up.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In the recent article on Johnson it said the SFA had a QC look at the consequences of what CW said at trial. (They did similar in 2015 with the same information that came out later at trial but found nothing to investigate. The difference is that in 2016 the conversation was private with Res12 lawyer. In 2017 the information became public and could no longer be ignored.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The foregoing exchange between SFA and UEFA should be part of what the Comp Off looks at. His recommendations on SFA Licensing process should begin with a Mission Statement for them on the lines of:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    “To understand and apply the rules of UEFA FFP as UEFA intend them without fear or favour and act with fairness to all applicants.”

  3. Hot Smoked on 16th March 2018 11:17 am

     

     

    ” If you can …..

     

     

    … lose,….

     

     

    … And never breathe a word about your loss”

     

     

    Doesn`t Mr Kipling sum up Barry just perfectly?

     

    ——————————————————————————

     

     

    Exceedingly.

  4. Paul 67

     

     

    It was great work but as I posted to HT and SFTB in the wee hours. Remember the lessons of Charlie Wilson’s War. I’ll repeat as it was in the wee hours.

     

     

    AULDHEID on16TH MARCH 2018 1:32 AM

     

     

    Hamilton Tim

     

     

    Yes a great bit of work by the CST/GB and FAC. I watched the debates from Holyrood with admiration on the case for OBAF repeal and how it was presented and am pleased a daft law was removed from the statute book BUT (see next)

     

     

     setting free the bears for Res. 12 & Oscar Knox on 15th March 2018 9:44 pm

     

     

     Great news on the OBaF Act repeal.

     

     

     Well done to The Celtic Trust, Jeanette Findlay and James Kelly, amongst many others.

     

     

     James Kelly had to suffer vilification on a Celtic website, including calls for Celts to actively vote against him in a forthcoming election.

     

     

     Whilst I am pleased with the outcome, this is not over. James Dornan will be looking to draft Strict Liability laws in the next stage of their battle against football fans and to preserve their narrow definition of sectarianism as “all that Irish stuff”. We didn’t see too many prosecutions after Scotland v England matches nor on the political campaign trail.

     

     

     We are not comfortable enough in our skins as Scots yet in order to accomodate the Irish-Scots, the English-Scots or the Asian-Scots beecause they are not sufficiently 110% Scottish.

     

     

    ============================

     

    The threat of Strict Liability reminds me of the ending to Charlie Wilson’s War where the Americans, having helped the Afghans defeat the Russians, more or less abandoned Afghan rebuilding funding and left a vacuum the Taliban filled to America’s cost.

     

     

     Strict Liability sounds ok in principle if I thought it would be applied fairly to all Scottish football clubs, but if the Res12 experience has taught us two things they are:

     

     

     Rules don’t apply to The Rangers as they do to other clubs.

     

     

     Those responsible for applying those rules will go to any lengths not only to protect Rangers but harm Celtic if the opportunity to do so is there in order to gain sporting advantage and protect themselves .

     

     

     The experience gained by FAC/CST/GB would be invaluable in the campaign for honest governance. The CSA are well up to speed with the skulduggery from Hampden, but what is lacking is an overreaching policy on how to deal not just with Hampden but the media attacks or spin against Celtic.

     

     

     We should be speaking as one voice to defend against both and now that the OBAF has been repealed hopefully the same mistakes as the Americans made in Afghanistan are not repeated and the resources of all Celtic supporter groups, official and unofficial can come together and focus on obtaining football governance we can trust, removing the threat of sporting disadvantage strict liability might bring if it replaces OBAF.

     

     

     Res12 has ploughed away on its own whilst FAC/CST/GB dealt with a more immediate important issue, but if ever there was a time for the Celtic family to get together and push for reforms it is now.

     

     

     I hope the issue moves up the agenda of all official supporter organisations and a policy is formed.

  5. BRTH

     

    Thanks for the detailed response.

     

    I agree that the licencing process appears to have been tightened up in recent years and it should be more difficult for teams to “do a rangers” ie lie and cheat in order to gain access to a tournament which could have provided life support cash for a dying business.

     

    I have long suspected that,when the truth eventually comes out,and it will, the SFA will try to pin the tail on the Whyte donkey along with “it was a new process,lessons learned,tightened up for the future,blah blah blah” to somehow exonerate themselves from much or any culpability.

     

    However,there are a couple of flies in that particular ointment:-

     

    1. By mid 2011 “the dugs in the street” knew rangers were in financial peril. Should that not have triggered an alarm at the SFA?

     

    2. Why did Regan repeatedly contend that the bill hadn’t crystallised?

     

    3.Why did Regan in NOVEMBER 2011. Email his friends at rangers seeking permission to make a press announcement reinforcing point 2 above?

     

    4.Why,when Whyte instructed Regan not to go ahead did Regan do his master’s bidding and settled for a cosy dinner at the Chandon D’Or along with Ali Russell,Whyte and the “heavily conflicted” Ogilvie?

     

    5.Why did someone at the SFA not lift a phone to HMRC and ask for their take on the wee tax bill?

     

     

    There are so many other questions that perhaps,if I live long enough to see it,the CO investigation will address.

     

     

    As another poster said he was told by a senior Celtic official,the Whyte trial was a “game changer”.Not only because some evidence not previously being available for use due to “provenance issues” were now in the public domain, but because a series of witnesses at the heart of this matter gave evidence in a court of law under oath that the wtb was “live” long before the UEFA licence process.

     

     

    I can’t wait to see what the Compliance Officer comes up with.

     

    medtim

  6. Well done every individual who participated in our democracy at getting this stupid law repealed.we done ity

     

     

    Paul 67

     

    ‘The need for vigilance against extreme right wing policies continues’

     

     

    i agree Paul

     

     

    Has Blair been to court? makes you want to define yir variables as to what is right wing?

     

     

     

    HH

  7. Imagine Strict Liability succeeded and sectarian chanting/singing no longer happened at football grounds.

     

     

    Problem solved?

     

     

    Hardly – Scotland endorses hundreds of sectarian marches every year and those behaviours would go on regardless.

     

     

    Strict Liability isn’t the answer.

  8. Is that James Dornan the same bloke who ‘stars’ in that ’50 Shades of…’ nonsense ?

  9. Paul 67,

     

     

    Totally agree with your leader. However if I may , I will add that although this unnecessary and vindictive act has been binned there remains a responsibility on all football supporters to eradicate sectarianism .

     

     

    As Celtic supporters we can only influence our support.

     

     

    HH and well done to all concerned.

  10. BMCUWP-thanks Bobby will pass on you’re good wishes:-))) Here’s hoping that there both playing catch-up for a while yet-:))Sitting in The Bodhran having one for him and every other dad who gave us Celtic:-)

  11. BATEEN BHOY on 16TH MARCH 2018 11:52 AM

     

    Is that James Dornan the same bloke who ‘stars’ in that ’50 Shades of…’ nonsense ?

     

     

    The Perth version is much dirtier…

     

    50 Sheds of Hay

  12. Ever seen Scottish Player of the Month on the Sky Sports Breaking News ticker…..me neither…

  13. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan on

    BMCUWP

     

     

    From earlier, see Auldheid’s reply.

     

     

    The whole 2011 application was a series of untruths, downright lies, massive omissions and a failure to apply the rules or seek to sanction their non compliance.

     

     

    As Auldheid says, by June 30th it is wholly inaccurate, by August it is demosntratbly untruthful, and by September an SFA official is openly saying that they hope that Uefa are too busy to notice.

     

     

    We have that e-mail. We know the date, who sent it, who received it, what is says, what it refers to and so on and on we go.

     

     

    As I say, this is not a licensing body which is seeking to apply the rules, it is one where a senior official is daft enough to openly state that they hope the European body is too busy to take an interest.

     

     

    Go figure!

     

     

    Medtim

     

     

    All good questions, and all already asked but worth asking again, but let’s focus on two or maybe two and a bit.

     

     

    Regan didn’t repeatsedly say that the tax bill hadn’t crystalised. He said:

     

     

    1. It was a potential bill.

     

    2. It was a real bill but hadn’t crystalised.

     

    3. It was a real bill, had crystalised but was not overdue in terms of football rules.

     

    4. It was a real bill, had crystalised, was overdue, but that Rangers had agreed an extension of time to pay it.

     

    5. It was a real bill, had crystalised, was overdue, was payable now, but that Rangers had in fact appealed it and so extended the time to pay it by way of legal process.

     

     

    There is a huge travel distance between scenarios 1-5 and the different version of events contradict one another.

     

     

    In any event, at various key dates NONE of the scenarios were in fact true.

     

     

    Auldheid has a file which refers to these scenarios being spoken to on air or in official interviews.

     

     

    Regan was never consistent.

     

     

    Next, Why did the SFA never check things with HMRC?

     

     

    Great question. They had the power to but didn’t. As Rangers move from scenarios numbered one to five above you would think that the easiest thing to do would be to check with HMRC who had been in to visit the SFA officially about this as far back as 2009 or so.

     

     

    But they didn’t.

     

     

    Equally, the outgoing corporate compliance officer, later COO and now acting CEO, accepted in 2015 that if the SFA files did not contain the letter from HMRC addressed to Donald McIntyre dated 20th May 2011 then there MUST be a review.

     

     

    Equally, the same man also stated that if that letter was in the file, but was not referred to in correspondence at the right time, then there MUST be a review!!

     

     

    Guess what?

  14. With multiple thanks to VFR and honourable mentions to Back to Basics and Dave King.

     

     

    The Setting – SuperScoreBoard (SSB)

     

     

    The participants: The Host Gordon Duncan (GD), The Panellist Derek Johnstone (DJ), the Caller Mick from Milton (MM)

     

     

     

    GD: Our next caller is Mick from Milton. Hello Mick, what’s the point you want to make?

     

     

    MM: Ah waaaant tae talk aboot the gemme last week.

     

     

    GD: OK Mick – go ahead (condescending looks shared between GD and DJ)

     

     

    MM: Kin ah talk to BIGGG DeeeeeeeeJaaaay?

     

     

    GD: You’re through to Derek – go ahead (more condescending looks shared between GD and DJ)

     

     

    MM: DeeeeeeJaaaay. Its aboot the Rangers. Before the gemme, aw we heard was a load oh – GD interrupts – now be careful what you say Mick.

     

     

    MM: Ah was just gonny say that that aw we heard was a load oh PRELICT and RODMONTADE aboot how they were gonnay win. But they got gubbed. Whit day yae think oh that DeeeeJaay?

     

     

    DJ: Well Mick. Celtic put the baw in the net 3 times and Rangers twice so Celtic won. Its as simple as that.

     

     

    MM: But DeeeeJaaay – whit ah was sayin was that the ALLITERATION before the gemme wis “Rampant Rangers” but efter the game it wis “Celebrating Celtic”.

     

     

    DJ: well eh, well eh,

     

     

    MM: Their ONEIROMANCY didnae quite work, did it?

     

     

    DJ: (shares uncomfortable look with GD. Wishes Jimmy Sanderson was there to help him): Well caller….as I keep saying on here, everyone’s entitled to their opinion

     

     

    MM: But DeeeJaay – Ah wud have expected a bit ae empirical evidence tae be CONCOMMITANT wae that boastin.

     

     

    Ah think that they huv the DUNNING KRUGER SYNDROME and that’ll DISLIMN them forever. Whit dae you think?

     

     

    (DJ quietly to GD: Are the adverts due now?)

     

     

    MM: Nae answer? Aw right, we’ll talk aboot Cellik. A though they wur RELUCENT on Sunday…

     

     

    DJ: A’ve hud enuff ae this. Meet me ootside the Radio Clyde studio efter the show and I’ll punch yer heid in.

     

     

    MM: Derek…ah don’t think you should try tae dae that. A’m a very STHENIC guy

     

     

    GD: We’ll take a break.

  15. Paul 67

     

     

    Where would we be now had Celtic not complied with attending the summit meeting after the ‘shame’ game which set up the flawed legislation?

     

     

    The repeal won’t prevent PC Plod lifting Celtic fans for phoney baloney charges and neither will the repeal make SNP properly address the real problem of sectarianism or its primary source.

     

     

    The activists deserve commendation our supporters are not protected from injustice, whilst we have an inherently bigoted Police Force and Parliament.

  16. 50 shades of green on

    So is it any 3 from or any 4 from.

     

     

    Lustic Boyatta Ajer KT Marvin Hendry Gamboa and Tony R….

     

     

    And whit aboot the Goalie Tom?????

     

     

    Is Dorus fit again? , Is Cragie or should Bain stay in goals after shipping 2 at ipox ( only kidden).

     

     

    Up front is it Moussa (aye) Eddie or is the Griff back yet????.

     

     

    The 3 attack mids ain’t any easier to choose, cant see the invisible mhan missing oot, leaving any 2 from Tom Paddy Charly Streach Jamsie.

     

     

    I know I will start with Broonie n Ollie as holding mids and leave the rest to Brendan, it worked last week:-).

     

     

    H.H

  17. !!Bada Bing!! @ 1.11 –

     

     

    Eh, just a tad, yes. For HMRC to disclose anything about a clumpany to any third party (e.g. the SFA) there would need to be signed authority from the aforementioned clumpany.

     

     

    ps, I’ve just read The Clumpany’s latest offering, linked earlier, and a fine offering it was.

     

     

    FridayLunchBreakCSC

  18. The Blogger Formerly Known As GM on

    Oooft, stready on.

     

     

    Anyone reading the article would think governments and organisations of a nationalist persuasion are narrow-minded bigots that enact legislation which persecutes and scapegoats minorities!

  19. Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan on

    Bada Bing

     

     

    Yes HMRC info is data protected and confidential!

     

     

    Except that as members if the SFA/UEFA each club gives the SFA/UEFA a mandate which authorises the SFA/UEFA to check and independently verify tax matters.

     

     

    Why the SFA didn’t use that mandate is a mystery.

     

     

    In any event, and note this, as part of a formal tax investigation HMRC made formal enquiries of the SFA about what contracts and wages had been declared by Rangers to the SFA as far back as 2009.

     

     

    In other words, the SFA were in direct communication 2 years earlier as a result of HMRC formally advising the SFA that they were investigating the tax affairs of RFC and looking for irregularities such as side letters, EBT payments and so on.

     

     

    So, without Rangers declaring anything the SFA knew, or ought to have known, that not all was right in the state of Ibrox and should have been on their guard.

     

     

    As an aside, take a close look at the dates and times when David Murray does the hokey cokey with his Ibrox directorship.

     

     

    He is in, out, shaking it all about at some key dates in this affair and by the time the balloon goes up, guess what? He is not a director and hasn’t been for a few years.

     

     

    He knew fine well what was coming down the pipe and removed himself.

  20. Jobo/BRTH,

     

    My understanding is the same as BRTH.

     

    Under “normal” circumstances HMRC won’t divulge such information but all member clubs of the SFA sign a mandate giving permission.

     

    Which throws up yet another raft of questions like:-

     

    1.DID the SFA contact HMRC?

     

    2.If so,what were they told?

     

    3.If not,why not?

     

    4.The whole range of who,what,why,when,where questions on this.

     

     

    Even more up to date.

     

    Has the SFA Compliance Officer asked this question of HMRC.

     

    ” See yon wee tax bill,when was it due to be paid?”

  21. Just got a job in the guillotine factory…

     

     

    I’ll be headed there shortly… ;-)

  22. mike in toronto on

    One thing I have never understood about the whole OBFA fiasco was Paul McBride’s support for same …

     

     

    I remember the TV debate he did on that with another lawyer (cant remember who.), but it seemed very strained …

     

     

    I wonder How things would have played out had he not passed away….

  23. Received mail this morning from Bibby Neil MSP, a person that I contacted about the OB. Act. She informed me of the vote and praised the work of those who had put so much effort into making MSPs listen to what havoc the law was causing. She saw it as true democracy at work.

  24. BMCW Just sent you email.

     

    In the St Patrick’s Day Parade tomorrow in Perth,WA the local Celtic Supporters’ Club will be in attendance for the first time.Green and white hoops with Club banners will certainly further enhance a great occasion. HH.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24