My Response to Bill McMurdo’s Question – “Paul, Do You Hate Rangers?”

Bill McMurdo, the well-known, prolific and always interesting blogger on Rangers-related issues, wrote a blog post which prompted me to post a comment on his blog.

He was good enough to publish it, notwithstanding his openly-stated comments policy:-

“Only supportive comments will be approved. This is not because I cannot take criticism but because those who disagree with me abused the privilege allowed them here of saying so.”

It provoked some questions from his commenters, and I now see a whole blog post!

Rather than clutter up Mr McMurdo’s comments thread with my brief reply, I thought I would do so here.

My Comment on Mr McMurdo’s Blog

My comment read as follows:-


You refer to me in the post above. I believe that the specific reference is inaccurate, as are the implied references. It would therefore be of assistance if you could do the following:-

Please direct me to where any of my comments on this issue “have been exposed once more as stirring up trouble by trying to make mountains out of molehills”.

Please show me anything I have written which is evidence of me demonstrating “the lunacy of obsessed and hate-twisted bloggers”.

Where have I ever written anything demonstrating “the bile and venom of those whose hatred of Rangers makes them lose all sense of rationale”?

Where have I written anything which falls within your description of matters written by “these haters (who) depart from truth and fact into fiction and lying”?

On this specific matter, if you had read any of my pieces, you would have seen no suggestion by me that “the end is nigh”, as indeed you quoted yourself.

I mentioned that the whole thing was an embarrassment, and a PR disaster, as did Mr Thomson, and indeed various esteemed Rangers supporting writers, including yourself!

I fail to see how anything I have written regarding Orlit falls within the descriptions mentioned above.

Notwithstanding your comments policy, I would appreciate you posting this comment on the thread.


Mr McMurdo’s Reply

Mr McMurdo responded as follows:-


Thanks for posting.

My main thing with you and the others is Why?

Why do you do what you do? What’s the pay-off?

If you say it’s cos you hate Rangers and want to see RFC destroyed you will get more respect from me than what I expect you will say – it’s in the public interest etc.

Your motive is the thing I question, Paul.

I have no quibble with Mr McMurdo’s comment, which was an entirely fair point to put forward, although one I, for reasons I will detail, I do not agree with.

Some Comments from Mr McMurdo’s Commenters

His commenters however might not all fall into that category. And I think that that is symptomatic of the whole issue, and what I have mentioned before.

BB said:-

If said blogger wasn’t into fiction then why did he have to remove a piece re the Rangers share offer…..????????????????????

If BB read my blog, he would see the answer. I don’t write fiction, and if I do I label it as such. (By the way BB, I like the use of question marks!!!!!!!!!)

Big Matt chipped in with:-

This clown’s editor in the daily record is austen barrett who hates Rangers and if we look into his family there is a real evil badness towards anything Rangers

Now I think Big Matt is confusing me with someone else. I do not write for the Record, although occasionally pieces have appeared which reminded me of blog posts I had written. And if Big Matt is referring to me, I have no idea at all of the “real evil badness” towards anything Rangers. (I also like that it is not just badness, or evil, but “real evil badness”!)

Kev followed up with this:-

Bill perhaps Paul could write an article about the child abuse cover up at the piggery. I’m sure thats a much bigger story.

As an aside, regular readers here will know that this issue raises its head from time to time, generally as a “response” from Rangers fans (or those who purport to be so).

Child abuse is a very serious matter. In my opinion people who engage in “whataboutery” by raising the issue in response to criticism or perceived criticism of their football team are demeaning the crime and the victims. Clearly there are many Rangers fans who seem to be very knowledgeable with allegations about matters  relating to this topic. I have said that, if someone wanted to write a post about it for the blog, and if it passed my standards for publication, including being within the bounds of the law, then I would have no problem posting it. No one has ever taken me up on the invitation.

Child abuse allegations about Celtic, or references to them, are posted daily on Rangers blogs, fan-sites and message boards. They appear too on Mr McMurdo’s blog (although never posted by him, as far as I am aware, and I would be surprised if a responsible writer, as he is, would do so).

After all, it is not as though every comment on every website is moderated. I know myself how hard it is to keep up with comments, and therefore I am sure that Mr McMurdo’s statement that “Comments will be moderated; allow time for yours to be approved” is not to be taken as confirmation that he reads every single comment before it goes on his site. If it did, then that would render him liable for legal action from people defamed on the site and, despite his warnings, for publication of any statements in breach of the criminal law.

I am sure he would not be foolish enough to fall into that error.

Cathars said:-

The simple fact Sir, that you have felt it necessary to post on this blog and ask for your indescretions to be pointed out, reinforces the opinions of Rangers fans.

Your suggested use of “sources and misinformation is clearly designed to harm The Rangers and The Rangers fans not by what is written but by what your writings imply.

For the writer, your bloggs truelly are doing Rangers and Rangers fans more good than you could ever imagine, for the detractors / separatists now realise, we are in fact an intelligent bunch and we have grasped and learened to use the power of the Internet against those who though they were beyond reproach.

Any commenter who makes a joke along the lines of “I blame the schools” as regards Cathars’ spelling will clearly only be doing so in jest.

WATPforever felt it appropriate to add in a religious reference for some reason:-

Deflection, deflection. How about commenting on your lies, or dishonestly, or agenda to harm Rangers.

People like you have exploited the generosity of our Protestant forefathers – but dunny worry, you’ll lose, we’re onto your sort, and your strategy, and same as before, we shall overcome.

WillhelmA helpfully managed to defame me, as did Carson’s Army (Any relation to our carson, I wonder?)

And to cap it all matt said:-

hahaha paul you are so blinded with hatred that you believe what you are doing is right


Now we come to Mr McMurdo’s post today

I hope he does not object to me reproducing the relevant section of it below, with my comments and responses in bold.

Readers of this blog may have noticed a post in the Comments section yesterday by Paul McConville from the Scots Law blog.

Paul took exception to being lumped in with Mad Phil and Toxic Thomson in articles I had written about the Orlit matter.

No I did not. I made no mention of Phil Mac Giolla Bhain or Alex Thomson. I asked about the references to myself.

My question to him cut to the heart of the matter – Why does he blog what he does on Rangers’ financial dealings. What is his motive?

I said to him he would get far more respect from me if he just admitted he hates Rangers and wants to destroy the club. Rather that than hear some nonsense about he is performing a public service by telling his readers about Rangers’ latest leccy bills.

I do not “hate Rangers”. I do not want to destroy “the club”. Even if I did (and I do not) then it is crediting me with delusions of grandeur to suggest that I could think that I could do so.

In fact, and I suspect that Mr McMurdo might agree, the people who have been closest to “destroying Rangers” in recent years have been called Murray and Whyte!

My motive for blogging about Rangers has been stated often before, but as Mr McMurdo has asked, I will re-iterate it.

I like reading about the law, thinking about legal issues and discussing them. I started blogging to find an output for that.

As the Rangers story progressed, there were numerous legal issues to write about.

Company Law

Insolvency Law

Employment Law

Family Law

Criminal Law

Banking Law

Sports Law

Administrative Law

Debt Recovery Law

Civil Procedure

Tax Law

Law Regarding Appeals

The list goes on, and on. Legal academics with whom I have had the privilege to discuss matters agree that one could prepare a syllabus addressing many of the elements required for a law qualification simply by going through the Rangers story.

In addition, from early on in the blog, and before I wrote about Rangers, I had commented on the way that the press presented issues, and the errors that were often made, whether deliberately or accidentally. This progressed from analysis of what papers had to say to looking at what statements came from the dramatis personae. The story of “succulent lamb” revealed by RTC and Phil Mac Giolla Bhain made it very interesting to look at what was being said, and to see where the media seemed not to ask questions (a recent example being the comments of Mr Jardine about which I wrote yesterday).

As time passed, there were repeated issues of legal relevance to comment on.

As I have said before, you won’t see me debating the merits of the overlapping wing-back, or the need for a big centre-forward if playing the long ball game.

To be frank, my interest in the nuts and bolts of sport is far more engaged by cricket, baseball and American football, than it is by football.

However the legal stuff surrounding Rangers, and its travails and progress from the SPL to the SFL has been of great interest.

Do I write as a form of “public information”? No. But if people want to read what I write, then I am happy, even where they disagree with me.

And I know nothing about Rangers latest leccy bills – is there a story there we should be looking at?

The problem with Rangers-haters is they don’t like attention being drawn to their hate.

As I said in the comment on Mr McMurdo’s blog, where is the hate? I will be astonished if Mr McMurdo, or anyone else, can find anything I have written on this blog over the last 18 or so months which qualifies as “hate”.

I think it is of note that Mr McMurdo and his commenters provide no response to the specific questions I asked.

To adapt what the Black Eyed Peas sang, “Where is the Hate?”

I am a Rangers fan but I don’t hate Celtic players or fans. There IS a lot I hate about the way Celtic people act and go about their business but I don’t hate people for being pro-Celtic. I have lots of friends who support Celtic. I may marvel at their poor judgment but I don’t hate them.

Fair play Mr McMurdo.

I do not hate Rangers, or its players or its fans. I may not like some of them who have written things about me which are false and insulting, both towards me and my family, or who post abusive comments on my blog, or who make disgusting accusations (so much so that Mr Dingwall of Follow Follow agreed to take down comments which he agreed had no place in any civilised discussion – and I hasten to say they were not comments made by Mr Dingwall, but by some of his readers).

I also think that it is indicative that anyone perceived to be anti-Rangers is automatically pro-Celtic.

Have I been to football games at Parkhead? Yes.

Has there ever been an occasion that I have gone to such a game for my own reasons, and not because of who I am with? No.

I have been to Cliftonhill for my own pleasure, but not for some time.

If given a choice, would I rather Celtic or Rangers prevailed if playing each other, I would pick Celtic. I suspect most fans of other teams in Scotland would answer one way or the other if asked. Most would not take the neutral line (although some would hope both could lose!)

I really am not that bothered about the football itself. I find it astonishing that people cannot realise that someone can be interested in matters without taking up an entrenched position.

This blog is not written from a place of hate. It is written from love – love for my team and a fierce desire to stand up for it, particularly in the face of blatant persecution and bigotry.

If I am being accused of contributing to “blatant persecution and bigotry” tell me where the evidence is?

I have no problem with Celtic-minded people writing because of a passion for their club but I do have a problem with hate-filled people obsessing about Rangers and spreading lies to damage the club.

Am I one of these “hate-filled” people Mr McMurdo?

Where are the lies I am spreading?

Paul McConville could perhaps clear the matter up for myself and others. Does he hate Rangers? An honest answer would be better than a cleverly-worded attempt to deflect or deny the question.

I repeat. I do not hate Rangers. Why should I? Rangers Football Club, as we discovered last summer, is a collection of assets, consisting of land, buildings, intellectual property rights and contracts of employment. How can one “hate” that?

Is that clear enough?

There are aspects of what might be viewed, in a wider sense, as “Rangers related” as exemplified, in one area, by WATPforever. Am I a fan of everything that the word “Rangers” connotes? No. I am not.

Do I “hate” it?

No. Hatred does no one any good. I am lucky enough to be in a position where there has been no event in my life so horrific or evil that I have no option but to “hate” the perpetrator.

He has had plenty of time to answer it now – at time of writing he has not replied.

Because, mirabile dictu, I was doing other things! Despite what some believe, I am not sitting at a laptop 24 hours per day in an effort to find something nasty to say about Rangers! (22 hours maybe.)

One more thing – any Rangers fan who wants to tell me that they DO hate Celtic and Celtic fans, please spare yourself the time and energy typing. You don’t defeat the enemy by being the same hate-spewing bigot you are supposed to oppose.

A final question for Mr McMurdo – I take it you are not suggesting that I am a “hate-spewing bigot”?

I do not expect fans of Rangers to like everything I write which mentions their beloved team – I do not like much of the comments directed at me from their fans and bloggers.

But the response of attacking the messenger seems to be almost a default position, and one wonders if recognition that, just occasionally, outside observers of Rangers have actually been right, might have been of benefit to the organisation.

Posted by Paul McConville



Filed under Blogging, Personal, Rangers

296 responses to “My Response to Bill McMurdo’s Question – “Paul, Do You Hate Rangers?”

  1. Paul,

    I admire you trying to be reasonable with the unreasonable.

    I take the view that it is impossible to debate successfully with those who are not interested in the answers to their questions, since their questions are fashioned in an accusing way.

    Any reasonable answer is ignored and new accusatory questions are asked.

    Ad infinitem.

    The truth does not interest them.

    Hushing the truth up does.

    Pity for them is, they are so bloody awful at it.

  2. Adam

    Just noticed the 100 thumbs up for a post and 60 thumbs up for micks post. 🙂

    How sad does one person have to be to sit and do that. lol 🙂

    • ecojon


      Do what Adam?

      • Adam

        I will give you the courtesy of a simple answer when you do likewise Eco.

        Is the true definition of bigotry an intolerance of someone elses beliefs, view or opinion based on the principles of ones own belief, view or opinion being different ?

        • cam

          As a numbers man Adam,give me the odds of you receiving a one word reply?

          • Adam

            Oh i think we know it wont be a one word reply. It will be 7 neat paragraphs about “you said this then i said this” plus “have you read my articles from ages ago as the answer lies in there somewhere” then a bit of “instead of picking 1000 random people on the street of all ages, sex and nationality, why dont we pick 1000 people of my choice who will answer the question the way i want them to”

            Boring repetitive nonsense.

            It is an established fact that my definition of bigotry above is correct. Why someone would go to such lengths to deny it when they know its true is beyond me. They even admit it themselves but just cant be seen to agree with my opinion on it for some really strange reason.

            • Adam

              And just as i though, over the page,paragraph after paragraph of you said, i said, you said.

              Lets try this another way then.

              The bigotry you experienced in your early life against Pakistanis, Jews and Indians, was this bigtory carried out by people who had an intolerance of Pakistanis, Jews and Indians, because they were not Pakistani, Jews or Indian?

              I really dont know which part you are disagreeing with me on to be honest.

              Is it beyond you to be nice and simple for once and answer with a simple yes or no.

              Is the true definition of bigotry an intolerance of someone elses beliefs, view or opinion based on the principles of ones own belief, view or opinion being different ?

              Is there anyone on here who would answer NO to that question as i would like to know their reasoning on why it is incorrect.

            • I’m waiting on you letting us know which report you’re quoting from this time. 🙂

              Part of me thinks possibly the Eco-meister kind of owns you until you explain yourself on that one ‘over the page’.
              I have no issue with Eco’s comments not being one word answers.

              This is similar to Maggie kind of owning Carson until he can explain himself on the, ‘I blame the schools’ issue.

            • Adam

              As i said, it was a report in connection with the offensive behaviour bill in which it looked at childrens views on bigotry. I googled it last night, had a quick read and it said that the bigotry on all occassions was sectarian in nature. Ive now read the link that Ecojon provided and im still not sure what the debate is about.

              There is no argument from me that sectarian hatred is manifested mainly in the home which is what the link stated. Thats not even the issue. I still maintain that if you stopped 1000 random people in Motherwell and asked them what is the main thing they associate bigotry with then the overwhelming majority will say “Rangers and Celtic” or “Catholics and Protestants”.

              Im really surprised if anyone disagrees with me on that.

              But all of this he said, i said, is simply a smokescreen as Ecojon has yet to establish why he has went on this trail.

              What was it about my initial statement he took objection to ?

            • One word replies are very convenient for those with a weak case full of holes.

              Cuts out having to present a cogent argument.

            • Adam

              Well make it more than one word then. Ecojon has still failed to clarify what he disagreed with on my original statement in relation to bigotry.

              I have answered all his questions with courtesy. It would be good if he could reciprocate.

        • peter

          No mate bigotry is the hating of someone who does not fall into line with a person(s) thinking, intolerance is the ignorance of someone to allow someone to have beliefs. An atheist does not knock a religious belief unless that belief is forced upon them. Does that help?

  3. Joe

    Anyone else waiting for this big scoop on chuckles promised earlier today?

  4. lordmac

    the only way murdo is seeing this is he wants you Paul to stop this blogging, give him and rangers peace do not dig up anything and if you can
    stop Celtic fans from gloating he would believe you, at a push he might allow a wee bit of gloating but murdo will not ask in return that Green give
    all the rangers fans that lost shares there money back HE holds green up high but he holds up DAVID MURRAY HIGHER, AND HE THINKS this is not the fans fault, yet if any blogger give him or them advice it makes us the obsessive and destructive party, and he and they will not believe through fear or pride we are trying to help that they don’t get robbed once more, we point out about all the guys that are wanting a bit of Rangers , but are not wanting to be part of, the Rangers, AS part of the family, are the top honchos embarrassed to be sharing rangers football club with its fans, to me it seem that way getting shafted now 3 times and still no fans groups getting any free shares tell me enough
    they would tell there granny there aint anything to see here.

  5. portpower

    Mr McMurdo. The carrot pursuing the carrot.

  6. portpower

    Scotzine Scoop.
    uncle charlie comes a cropper with a ping pong ball while relaxing in Singapore after successful Australian sponge fund tour.

  7. Martin

    McMurdo is joust a younger version of Leggat.

    I used to converse with him but he takes moderating to North Korean proportions.

    He won’t allow posts that point out his failings or approve quotes from the like of Charlie Boy & The Head of Communications confirming the newco as a new club.

    Meanwhile, if it’s references to child abuse our “our culture” or any other derogatory comments then they are approved.

    I only started reading what he had to since December but he’s simply just another hardcore nut although he tries to paint himself as above that but then he blogs about wanting the BB returned, that rangers should retain it’s status as a protestant club, he even got lapped down by his own fans for claiming the atmosphere is now so toxic between old firm supporters that he claimed when Sean Fallon passed RIP it would be better to remain silent on the issue as sad as it was.

    The man is just another bitter trumpet which the WOS could do without.

    If you don’t agree with the nonsense you’re a hater, an enemy, a bigot…..

    • Ben

      You obviously have tunnel vision and listen to idiots like Mcconvict who brainwash you into believing what they say and you all fall for it, what a sad nation Scotland now is and narrow minded engulfed by media hatred on both sides of the old firm.

      • Que? McMurdo is nothing but a bigot who only allows what he calls “supportive” comments, ie he brooks no argument or criticism.

        How do I know this? Because I have posted perfectly reasonable questions, and each & every one gets deleted. He is only interested in polemic.

  8. dan

    Bam! Finally read your ‘response!’ Still don’t know what you’re gripe is, but I’ll try and be a bit clearer this time. Ahem, here we go. I know people who know people honest injuns like you and me wouldn’t want to know. And the people I know have told me things about the people they know—such as the ‘drive-by incident’ referred to in my post. They people I know also told me the people they know were thinking about investing in a newly formed soccer club, so I thought I might allude to it on here. But as there is no such thing as guaranteed anonymity in this world, I thought it wise to be a bit oblique in case the people known to the people I know ever sussed me out. Know what I mean? It’s as plain as the knows on your face, FFS.

    And Bam, I doubt if anyone believes your ‘blanking’ malarky. I think you’re just a wee tad yeller. You like to come on here and crack wise, but you just cannot take it when it gets directed back at you. But fear not, I’ll leave you alone now. I’ve had my fun. And the fact that I’ve gotten to you is testified to by the abusive nature of your post. I think it’s what Paul would describe as a wee smidgin ad hominem. Byeeeee!

    • cam

      So thats it?
      After months of thinking and consulting your old textbooks,thats it??
      You admitted you were bevvied,,no crime
      You make really pathetic references to “knowing” some naughty folk.
      When you made your drink fuelled cryptic comment i asked you to explain it you didn’t,,i blanked you and you did your stalker routine.
      Now you come back with more oblique wee boy rubbish,appeal to your cyber pals for some handers and run away yelping like a spanked wean.
      Brings back memories of school,when you had to fight someone after the bell and you had it on your mind all day only for the the mouthy wee crapper not to turn up.
      I totally agree son,,lets blank each other out of respect to the host.

  9. ecojon

    Your mask may be tightly in place but your deflector shields are slipping badly.

    You tell me: ‘The whole forum is watching and waiting for your answer’ – Wow celebrity status well let’s try and not disappoint 🙂

    I have given you the link to two detailed and lengthy posts I have written on the definition of bigotry and its etymology and the various comments on these posts from others also contain valuable information.

    If you actually read the posts you may be in a position to advance a balanced argument where I have got it wrong in terms of my facts or reasoning and why you are correct. That’s how people debate because if they adopt entrenched positions there can be no progress in understanding another’s position. As to your question of what is the ‘TRUE’ definition of bigotry – read my posts and try to understand them and, if you are diligent, you may find the path to the truth that you so desperately need IMHO.

    However since facts are always important, let’s return to your statement last night: ‘The recent surveys of children for the Offensive Behaviour Bill revealed 44% of the respondents had experienced “bigotry” When you dug deeper, every example was sectarian.’

    I repeatedly asked you to identify the report you referred to because a couple of things about your ‘facts’ didn’t ring true in my memory. You failed to provide the information until thi morning at 2:39am when I was well asleep. And what do you have to say: ‘I dont have a link to the actual report’.

    OK so no link – so tell me then which organisation prepared the report. Surely if you can quote from it in detail you must know which organisation published it. Where did your quote come from?

    I did suggest that, becaue of the shared 44% figure, your report might indeed be:

    The Action for Children survey revealed that: ‘Over a third of young people (36%) have been treated badly or unfairly because of sectarianism or some other form of hatred, with nearly half (44%) of young people believing that sectarian views are a direct result of upbringing, rather than religious beliefs (25%).’

    However you said your anonymous report: ‘Revealed 44% of the respondents had experienced “bigotry” When you dug deeper, every example was sectarian’.

    But that isn’t what the Action for Children survey revealed. Let me remind you what you said in the early hours of this morning: ‘I dont have a link to the actual report but given its 44% and linked to the offensive behaviour bill then it most likely is the same one’.

    So the report you have quoted from is most likely the report I have provided a citation for. If that really is true Adam why have you misquoted the report. You have been well and truly caught-out on this one Adam but then the TRUTH has a terrible habit of doing that.

    What a fud you are – trying to win a point on the TRUE definition of ‘bigotry’ by quoting from an official report which you are unable to identify and it appears you have deliberately twisted the words in the report I have cited to suit you blue agenda.

    The whole forum awaits your explanation ADAM and they might even have their bleary eyes on you 🙂

    • Adam

      Ive answered above. Can you please to save everyone falling asleep at out he said, you said argument tell me if im right or wrong in my true definition of bigotry.

      • ecojon


        The TRUTH according to Adam. You have displayed your version of truth to all and sundry by your gross manipulation of an official report and having been caught-out you don’t remember who produced the report or where you saw it.

        You sound like a child having a temper tantrum with your: ‘Tell me if im right or wrong in my true definition of bigotry’.

        I have told you what to do if you actually are a seeker of truth – read my detailed posts on the definition and etymology of ‘bigotry’ and tell me what I have got wrong and we will debate the matter.

        But in future please provide citations for any sources you quote as you do not appear to be trustworthy when quoting from sources that you claim you can’t even remember 🙂

        You were caught-out bigstyle on this one Adam and you are indeed a stranger to the TRUTH.

        • Adam

          Ecojon, i think you have this the wrong way around here. Ive not accused you of getting anything wrong at all. Ive skimmed your articles and from what i can see, im at a loss as to what you disagree with me on. It looks like you agree with me.

          You cite having witnessed bigotry against Pakistanis, Jews and Indians and i have no reason to disbelieve that at all. I too have witnessed this and its not nice.

          Can you please for clarity point out what it is you disagree with me on in relation to the initial statement that started all of this. Despite everything that has been written since, my point is that if you hate Rangers or Celtic and are intolerant to everything about them, just because you support the opposite team, then you meet the concise definition of a bigot.

          Are you able to grab my olive branch here and confirm if you agree with me or not on that point ?

        • gary brown

          @ adam,just a typical rangers fan,bigot then,bigot now, bigot forever.if the rangers fc went out of business never to raise their nasty heads again all the bigotry and sectarianism in scotland would stop and never raise its nasty head again

          • Ben

            If you think the above is true then you are very narrow minded and i dont support any of the old firm but there are bigots not just on both sides of the old firm but in every football club in Scotland hence the above will never go away.

      • cam

        You’re trying to nail a wee green jelly to a wall Adam.

    • Adam

      Right, so after a little digging and reading an article which i can now confirm is linked with the report above, i got the 2 numbers mixed up. The article does point out that over a third of the youngsters had experienced bigotry (36% not 44%) The report you link to pretty much talks completely about sectarianism but as you point out it is a small sample of just over 100 people.

      So apology 1. I should have stated 36% and not 44%
      Apology 2. In hindsight, i should have used a better example.

      There we have it. 2 unreserved apologies.

      • For me, you having been owned by Eco is now … unworthy of further comment.


        • Adam

          “owned” I was 8% out with a figure the doesnt really change the premise of what was said. Nice of you to stick up for your buddy though who clearly wont now answer my point.

          There is a reason why you would do that. 🙂

          • tykebhoy

            Only 8% out? That’s one hell of a tolerance factor. I suspect the Apollo space progamme would have been a complete and utter shambles with a tolerance factor like that. Not the first time you have relied on a large tolerance factor though is it? I remember you were relying on 100% when referring to the audited accounts of the holding company of a club now in liquidation

            • Adam

              People get things wrong. When you get things wrong, you admit it and you move on. Are you trying to tell me you get everything right all the time ?

              Would you care to offer your opinion on my actual point rather than dealing with something that has already been agreed ?

            • tykebhoy

              If I didn’t have suspicions that you got it deliberately wrong maybe. You have history of getting things wrong deliberately

            • Adam

              What have i got “deliberately wrong” and in the grand scheme of things, what does it really matter. The premise was still the same.

            • tykebhoy

              audited accounts ring any bells or are you still blaming that one on a wee lassie who led you astray

            • Adam

              Why would I get that deliberately wrong. And no it wasnt the lassies fault. It was Whyte up to the same old tricks, which i should have known better about given my views on him.

            • tykebhoy

              I see you haven’t got it. Somebody could quite easily twist my words and assume you are an adulterer. “We lassie led you astray”. It’s something you appear to be a master of, both twisting others words and placing words in such a way that they could have a double meaning.

              For the record I have no proof that Adam was led astray in an adulterous way by a wee lassie of his aquaintance

            • Adam

              Youve completely lost me now 😦

              I havent a scooby what you are gibbering about. And how we got here from what was a 100% (yes thats right 100%) factual definition of the word “bigot” is beyond me.

              Would you not care to give your opinion on that ?

            • tykebhoy

              Adam, I’m just proving that, until proved otherwise, everything you post is taken with the same pinch of salt you alledgedly apply to Leggo, McMurdo, Chuckles and Jabba. You are slippery and twisty which reminds me of a snake

            • Adam

              Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion and i respect that.

              We have reached an impasse now and i guess despite me answering every question put to me and apologising above, i doubt i will be given the courtesy of a reply to my original statement by ecojon.

            • Den


              Did Rangers produce audited accounts during Craig Whyte’s tenure?

          • Woodpecker

            Numbers man? 18.18% out on the figure that the debate revolves around!

  10. Adam

    Here is the statement that started all of this:

    “I do not hold the same opinion of Phil Mac, or Andy at Scotzine or for a healthy number of people on here who make it absolutely abundantly clear that they 100% hate Rangers and everything attached to it. By the true definition of the word, not the West coast of Scotland version, they are bigots.”

    Can you please tell me which part you disagree with Eco in relation to the definitions ?

    If someone hates Celtic and everything attached to it, just because they are a Rangers fan and are intolerant of all things Celtic, are they a bigot ?

    Yes or No ?

    • ecojon


      Neither 🙂

      • coatbrigbhoy

        Bigotry/sectarianism, for me that is just two words that are used to hide what really goes on with a large section of Rangers fans, Anti Irish racism is the problem, most Rangers fans don’t seam to have to much of a problem with Italian,German,French or even Scottish Catholics, the big problem for many Rangers fans are the “Irish” Catholics or the “Irish” History and traditions of Celtic FC.
        This anti Irish unionist, loyalist orange order sickness is visited on Glasgow by the ferry load every other week, it has always been a blight on Scottish football and Charlie Greens mad dash to “ulster”, Parading (pun intended) about in an Orange Rangers top, to appeal to this section of the season ticket buying rangers fans will keep this problem from dying out in the foreseeable future,
        This bigotry/sectarianism should be called, pursued and prosecuted under it’s true name, RACISM

    • I note the above comment hurriedly rewinds the discussion to a point before Adam gets ‘owned’.
      Nice move Adam.

    • …”a healthy number of people on here who make it absolutely abundantly clear that they 100% hate Rangers and everything attached to it.”

      What’s not to hate…

  11. Don

    Hi Paul, so Mr McMurdo wants to know: Do you hate Rangers? The context in which this question is asked is akin to inquiring – Do you still beat your wife? Answer yes or no! Despite your very eloquent and cogent reply, the hopelessness of your task (i.e. providing an answer that might in some small way help enlighten and open Mr McMurdo’s mind) becomes all too obvious when, he follows up, with what I can only describe as a decerebrate attempt at verbally tap-dancing round your comprehensive response. I mean, to then comment – “ if you say it’s cos you hate Rangers and want to see RFC destroyed you will get more respect from me than what I expect you will say – it’s in the public interest etc. Your motive is the thing I question, Paul.” – is both puerile and disingenuous.
    Obviously that wiley psychologist, Mr McMurdo, considers he clearly has your measure and has exclusive insight into the true nature of what you are really about. Come on McConville have the decency to admit it, you still beat your wife even if it is now only on those rare occasions when Albion Rovers get skelped. (What was the score yesterday? Oh dear, poor Mrs McConville!)
    Seriously, Mr McMurdo genuinely feels irked and perhaps even threatened by your well-constructed and cleverly argued missives as do many others of his ilk. Particularly when you, as a non-tribal member or much worse a member perceived to be representative of the main protagonist tribe, raise questions about or, indeed, have the brazen temerity to comment upon any of the news bulletins which over recent times have, at regular intervals, erupted (as a result of the peculiar machinations within RIFC plc. and or its subsidiaries) upon and into the public domain. Mr McMurdo retains a closed-mind, coupled with a siege mentality – if you’re not for us you’re against us. Unfortunately, no matter how misconceived or perverse Mr McMurdo’s notions are, with regard to what motivates your writings, they are very much real to him. Consequently, and as suggested earlier, any likelihood of success in appeasing him, let alone winning him over, must rank as minimal to non-existent. This is by no means to say that you should not respond. On the contrary, it was absolutely essential that you did because, by so doing, you have further demonstrated, perhaps most importantly, to those genuinely impartial observers and followers, the disciplined propriety which you at all times exercise in both the writing and administration of your blog.
    It has to be said, regardless of particular tribal loyalties, most individuals are prone to adopt, to some extent, a similar approach to that of Mr McMurdo when fighting off perceived threats to our person or social group. (Becoming tired with tribal analogy) However, it is right and proper that the public demand, of those bloggers and commentators genuinely seeking to attain any semblance of credibility in their publications, to at all times, be extremely mindful of the absolute need to be seen to be legally circumspect, fair and even-handed in their reporting of events. Notwithstanding, an admitted element of partiality, it is my considered view that you, Mr Paul McConville, are, most assuredly, one of that rare breed who meets all the pre – requisites described in the previous sentence. As for Mr McMurdo, whose blog is not prepared to allow vent to views expressed in opposition to those of his own, well?

  12. Al

    well played Paul, the likes of McMurdo, Leggo, RST, FF, etc think they can write what they want and the brain-dead zombies will believe every word. McMurdo has often stated that “when he has time” he will write about the Celtic scandal, you know the one, the one that happened at Celtic Park, by a member of staff, this is how far they have stretched their lies. There is absolutely no way McMurdo could write about such a subject, he knows he would get reamed for it as their version of events really don’t tie up with the truth.

    As for Leggo, kicked from the NUJ for the bile he spouts, nuff said really, even his own kind are turning against him, but with no right to reply or questions allowed on his blog, he has slowly but surely made himselp a laughing stock.

    Keep up your good work, you always present the alternative view and I for one will continue to enjoy it.

    • willy wonka

      Leggo wasn’t “kicked from the NUJ”. He resigned from them after ten-names and McNally tried to set him up. Surely you remember that ? You know, just before the clown Thomson lied that Leggat had been fined £1000 by a NUJ disciplinary committee and was subject to a police investigation………… just before Strathclyde Police reported that Thomsons claims and blogs had been dismissed as without foundation. You surely remember, just before Thomson accused Strathclyde Police of corruption ?
      I thought everybody knew that.

  13. JimBhoy

    hi de hi… Had a great day out yesterday first time at the Rugby coming away with a win… Sang some tally songs mixing with their fans. Ended the night with my 2 pals of the masonic persuasion and had a giggle about the fitba… The way it should be..

    Feeling a wee bit rough today though

  14. JimBhoy

    @willy wonka surprises me he was actually a member cos his ramblings are rotten to the core… He is out to do people harm and that I cannot abide by.

    • willy wonka

      Al, ” aha, denial and deflection, well played, u believe ur version and i will believe award winning journalists versions. good day.”
      What ? No link to the NUJ ? Nothing ?
      Just, ” He was kicked from the NUJ”.
      Then, ” Well he would’ve been but resigned first”.
      Then, Leggo is telling lies.
      Finally, ‘denial and deflection’.

  15. Laudrup97

    To quote the great John McEnroe “you cannot be serious ” with the Albion Rovers claim ? That is an absolute belter my good fellow .

  16. SairFecht

    Dear Me – just read the Bill McMurdo response – not a question answered – not a single issue of argument taken up – just more grist to the mill for a collection of sorry, inarticulate men commonly bonding online each day for no better purpose than vilfying people who don’t view the world in the same distorted way. Reading down the comments – akin to walking through a locked ward in times of severe medication shortage.

  17. NumbNuts

    I well remember the ‘dalek’ postings from Bill McMurdo. In the same breath as deriding Alex Thomson for not knowing the offence caused (in inadvertently repeating/posting the term), he then admitted that as a life long rangers fan he had never heard of it before! The clear contradiction was either beyond his wit or did not fit with his polemic.

    When someone sets out to denounce, retaliate, abuse and deride, then they display and incite hatred regardless of any words of protestation. Comparing and contrasting the Mcconville blog against the McMurdo blog does not challenge the fair and inquisitive mind to determine where the balanced and informed commentary is to be found.

    In making one set of accusations and failing to stick by them and support them, Bill McMurdo shows the weakness of his words and lack of wisdom.

  18. NumbNuts

    I well remember the ‘dalek’ postings from Bill McMurdo. In the same breath as deriding Alex Thomson for not knowing the offence caused (in inadvertently repeating/posting the term), he then admitted that as a life long rangers fan he had never heard of it before! The clear contradiction was either beyond his wit or did not fit with his polemic.

    When someone sets out to denounce, retaliate, abuse and deride, then they display and incite hatred regardless of any words of protestation. Comparing and contrasting the Mcconville blog against the McMurdo blog does not challenge the fair and inquisitive mind to determine where the balanced and informed commentary is to be found.

    In making one set of accusations and failing to stick by them and support them, Bill McMurdo shows the weakness of his words and lack of wisdom and maturity.

  19. NumbNuts

    I well remember the ‘dalek’ postings from Bill McMurdo. In the same breath as deriding Alex Thomson for not knowing the offence caused (in inadvertently repeating/posting the term), he then admitted that as a life long rangers fan he had never heard of it before! The clear contradiction was either beyond his wit or did not fit with his polemic.

    When someone sets out to denounce, retaliate, abuse and deride, then they display and incite hatred regardless of any words of protestation. Comparing and contrasting the Mcconville blog against the McMurdo blog does not challenge the fair and inquisitive mind to determine where the balanced and informed commentary is to be found.

    In making one set of accusations and failing to stick by them and support them, Bill McMurdo shows the weakness of his words and a damning lack of wisdom and maturity.

  20. Any chance you could look at the issues at hearts again.
    There has been some developments such as

    And this doc

    And this company

    Think you should ignore rangers until they return to the SPL.

  21. Adam

    Just as i thought. No reappearance. No courtesy. Standard.

  22. Luke C

    The problem is that you *only* seem to focus on Rangers – it’s not like you focus on an other teams such as Hearts, for example. They have comparable issues, don’t they?

    Therefore, with that obsession, it seems that you’re a “Rangers obsessed and not in a good way” blogger. It may not be “hate” – but it doesn’t seem far off, if I’m honest. It’s sad to say that, isn’t it?

    However – you ARE entitled to your opinions. As long as it’s based purely based on facts, and not the sort of fiction of certain other bloggers.

    Good luck to you. Try focussing on other teams’ issues too – there are many out there – and you’ll get a better reputation.

  23. Pingback: I’ve Annoyed Some People By Writing About What Mr McCoist Said, So Here I Explain Why I Do | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

  24. Pingback: In Which I Thank Bill McMurdo For His Kind Words! | Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s