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.
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.
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.
Debt Recovery 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