Is It A Crime To Wear A T-Shirt Supporting the INLA at a Rangers v Celtic Game? The High Court Says Yes

On 18th September 2011 Kevin Maguire attended the Rangers v Celtic match at Ibrox. One assumes he is a Celtic fan. One wonders if he had carefully chosen his wardrobe for the occasion.

As the High Court stated in its decision which can be found here in Maguire v PF Glasgow, Mr Maguire:-

“was wearing a black top which, in bright green letters approximately 3 to 4 inches in size, displayed the letters “INLA”. On the back of the top was, again in large bright green letters, the slogan “F… YOUR POPPY REMEMBER DERRY”. As is well-known, the initials INLA refer to the Irish National Liberation Army, which is a proscribed organisation in terms of schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The reference to Derry is, of course, to the events in that town on 30 January 1972.”

Two officers from Strathclyde Police saw Mr Maguire’s attire as he left the ground amongst the 3,000 Celtic fans present at the game. The officers considered that his T-shirt posed a threat of disturbance to public order.

Mr Maguire was arrested and, on 28th August 2012, appeared for trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court. He was charged that:-

“on 18 September 2011 at Edmiston Drive, Glasgow you … conduct (sic) yourself in a disorderly manner wear a top which displayed slogans of an insulting and abusive nature and commit a breach of the peace”.

He was convicted. The sheriff imposed a Football Banning Order for a period of two years.

Mr Maguire appealed against conviction and sentence. The High Court, consisting of Lord Carloway (the Lord Justice Clerk), Lord Drummond Young and Lord Marnoch upheld both decisions of the Sheriff.

It might come as a surprise that a crime can be committed merely by wearing clothing which “displays slogans of an insulting and abusive nature”.

Separately too one might wonder how the courts decide if a statement is “insulting and abusive”.

One might also wonder how this relates to the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 states, in part:-

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The police officers on the spot were very assiduous. They identified Mr Maguire’s clothing as potentially offensive and, as the High Court recorded their evidence to the Sheriff:-

“… in the volatile atmosphere of a Rangers and Celtic match and its aftermath, it was likely that the insignia of this organisation would be regarded as offensive and inflammatory by Rangers fans, and that there was the potential for this to provoke disorder and disturbance. The Celtic fans, although cordoned off from the opposing support in the immediate vicinity of the stadium, would merge with the Rangers fans a few hundred yards down Edmiston Drive. The officers also considered that there was a potential for the reference to the INLA to provoke Celtic supporters too. They would not appreciate their football club being associated with such an organisation. The police thought that any reasonable person would consider the slogan relative to the poppy to be offensive and upsetting, likely to be inflammatory and to provoke disorder. This would apply particularly in relation to any members of the public attending the match who had served in the Armed Forces or had family or friends in the Forces.”

One hesitates to suggest that the thought process of the police at the scene might not have been as all-encompassing as they were once they got to court, but as well-trained officers, I have no doubt that they did consider all of these issues before dealing with Mr Maguire.

In deciding the Mr Maguire had been guilty of the offence, the High Court recorded:-

The sheriff noted that violence at football matches between Rangers and Celtic was by no means uncommon. She noted that, in Wilson v Brown 1982 SCCR 49, Lord Dunpark had stated that it was the duty of the police to forestall the eruption of violence wherever possible. The police had the power to terminate provocative conduct by arrest, if that were necessary, before it led to violence.

The sheriff applied the test, outlined in Dyer v Hutchison 2006 SCCR 377, of whether the appellant’s conduct was likely to cause distress or alarm to a reasonable person in the vicinity. She concluded that the appellant’s conduct was in that category.

She took the view that it had the potential to cause a serious disturbance, including violence, and that there was accordingly sufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant’s conduct constituted a breach of the peace. In due course, she made that finding in fact and convicted the appellant.

Having found Mr Maguire guilty, he was sentenced, and it was revealed to the court that he had a significant number of previous convictions including assault, three offences of breach of the peace, including one aggravated by religious prejudice, and sundry other matters.

The court recorded that the conviction for aggravated breach of the peace had taken place in connection with an Orange Order march.

A Football Banning Order lasting two years was imposed.

Mr Maguire duly appealed. It was argued that the evidence was insufficient from which to draw the necessary inference, in terms of Smith v Donnelly 2002 JC 65, that a breach of the peace had been committed.

Equally, it was submitted that the sheriff had not been entitled to make a finding to that effect and ultimately to convict the appellant. Reference was made to various cases on the nature of breach of the peace. In relation to Jones v Carnegie 2004 JC136 in particular, it was stressed that, where there was no evidence of actual alarm, the conduct in question required to be flagrant. Finally, it was said that the court ought to bear in mind the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention. The appellant had simply been engaging in legitimate protest.

(As an aside the argument that Mr Maguire was engaged in legitimate protest seems rather undermined by what was said to the Sheriff in mitigation after conviction. His defence agent told the court that “the appellant had met with certain family members from Northern Ireland before the match and had been given the top as a present. It was maintained that he had been unaware of what the lettering represented.”  The Sheriff rejected that suggestion as implausible. It might have been the case that Mr Maguire’s legitimate protest centred only on the poppy and Derry. The suggestion that he had been handed it before the game, and that he did not understand what the letters referred to, does not, in my view, bolster his argument.)

The court considered the appeal against conviction and pronounced:-

In relation to the merits of the conviction, the test of whether a breach of the peace has been committed is well-known and settled.

It is, in terms of Smith v Donnelly 2002 JC 65, whether the conduct is severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and to threaten serious disturbance to the community.

It is conduct which presents as genuinely alarming and disturbing in its context to any reasonable person.

If there is no evidence of actual alarm then, in terms of Jones v Carnegie 2004 JC 136 (at para [2]), the conduct requires to be “flagrant”.

Here, taking account of the facts as established by the Sheriff, the Court upheld the conviction.

The court noted that:-

The actions of the appellant in wearing this top were not part of a legitimate protest.

Rather they amounted to a deliberately provocative gesture, calculated to cause precisely the type of disturbance which the court referred to in Smith v Donnelly.

His conduct, in the context of this football match and its aftermath, presented as genuinely alarmingly and disturbing to any reasonable person.

The court dealt briefly with the Human Rights point, saying:-

The court does not consider that the appellant’s right to freedom of expression was in any way be affected by his arrest and subsequent conviction. Even if the appellant does wish to engage in genuine protests, either in relation to Remembrance Day, the events of “Bloody Sunday” or about the proscription of the INLA, he has plenty of suitable opportunities in which to do so without intentionally provoking serious disturbance, including violence, in the community.

Turning to sentence, it had been argued that, following the case of Doolan v Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie XJ946/12, in which it was apparently determined that a Football Banning Order was not proportionate where a person had thrown a smoke bomb inside a football stadium, it was inappropriate to make such an order here. The court in Doolan decided that the sheriff in that case had failed to give adequate consideration to the proportionality of imposing such an order, which the court described as involving a substantial interference with the liberty and private life of the person concerned. This related specifically to the reporting requirements which such an order carries.

The High Court gave the argument on this ground as short shrift as it had that on conviction, saying:-

The court notes that, although there may have been no specific previous conviction relative to football related offending, the appellant has previous convictions for public disorder and one involving a sectarian element. When the present conviction is seen in light of his criminal record, the court has no difficulty in holding that this was a case in which the imposition of the banning order was entirely proportionate.


What Does This Tell Us?

As with many cases which appear to throw up alarming results, this decision is less far-reaching than at first might appear. The High Court did not declare that it was a crime to wear a top promoting the INLA.

Instead the decision seems to have been founded upon the factual determination made by the Sheriff, and based upon the evidence of the arresting police officers.

Their evidence was that Mr Maguire was about to reach an area where Rangers and Celtic fans could mix.

In this area there was likelihood that the mere sight of Mr Maguire’s T-shirt would provoke Rangers fans to acts of violence, or at least to public disorder.

In addition, and even whilst he was within the group of 3,000 Celtic fans, the slogans on his T-shirt were of such a nature that Celtic fans walking with him would be provoked to disorder by the sentiments being expressed on Mr Maguire’s top, as these fans would violently take exception to their club being linked with these matters.

Either, with the greatest of respect, the police have a very low opinion of football fans and their self-restraint, or a remarkably prudent attitude to the prevention of disorder.

It is also of note that the offence of breach of the peace of which Mr Maguire was convicted included the allegation of wearing a top displaying “slogans of an insulting and abusive nature”.

The words “insulting and abusive” appear in the decision only in the charge. Whilst the police gave evidence that the insignia of the INLA would be viewed as “offensive and inflammatory” that is, I suggest, different from being “insulting and abusive”. There might not be a lot of difference, but there surely is one?

The police officers also testified that the poppy reference would be “offensive and upsetting, likely to be inflammatory and to provoke disorder.” Is that the same as “insulting and abusive”?

What About “Free Speech”?

The judges’ opinion seems to suggest that Mr Maguire’s rights to freedom of expression are maintained, as long as he does not exercise them where it is inappropriate to do so.

How far however does that go?

Would Mr Maguire have been arrested for wearing that T-shirt at Celtic Park? On the evidence of the police, to the effect that they believed Celtic fans would become violent and disorderly if they thought their team was being connected to the INLA, then the logic is that Mr Maguire would fall to be arrested there too.

As far as the poppy part of the T-shirt went, the police evidence was noted as follows:-

The police thought that any reasonable person would consider the slogan relative to the poppy to be offensive and upsetting, likely to be inflammatory and to provoke disorder. This would apply particularly in relation to any members of the public attending the match who had served in the Armed Forces or had family or friends in the Forces.

Presumably then Mr Maguire wearing the T-shirt on a busy shopping street would lead to his arrest? After all, here would be “reasonable people” who, as reasonable people, would found it to be inflammatory.

And, one might also ask, where does the Appeal Court consider that it would be appropriate to make such a protest?

Somewhere where the protest cannot be seen?

Why Was The Matter Dealt With in This Way?

Here is what I think happened.

(I was not at Ibrox that day, nor was I at court for the trial or the appeal. However, based on what the High Court has said, and upon experience of how police deal with potentially problematic gatherings, I think the following scenario makes sense. If it is in error I apologise to the officers or Mr Maguire, as appropriate.)

Mr Maguire may have been down-hearted, Celtic having lost 4-2 and Charlie Mulgrew having been sent off.

Mr Maguire, being a man whose convictions suggest he does not hide his light under a bushel, may well have taken exception to the police as he made his way along Edmiston Drive. He may even have been rude to them.

The police from time to time will make an example of someone (but only of course where an offence had been committed) pour encourager les autres.

I suspect that Mr Maguire found himself in the hands of the police as a result of him exchanging pleasantries with the police, which the police did not find pleasant. After all, I find it surprising that this was the most offensive T-shirt, flag or banner on display, or even that this, as opposed to any other, was the one to attract police attention.

If Mr Maguire was correct that he had been presented with the T-shirt that day at the match, then presumably he had other clothing, and if the interest of the police was in stopping disorder, he could have been told to put his coat or jumper on!

So one suspects that there is much more to this than meets the eye, and thus less to the general principle.

The Appeal Court too would have been aware of the list of Mr Maguire’s previous convictions when deciding on the appeal. One wonders, idly, if they might have had a different view on the conviction if the accused had been an alleged first offender?

In addition, I suspect that the contention by the accused that he did not know what INLA stood for  might not have helped.

(In the case of Walls v PF Kilmarnock, Lord Carloway, in upholding the conviction of a man for singing “the Famine Song” and shouting “F… the Pope” and about “Fenian b…….” at a Rangers v Kilmarnock match, was unimpressed by the defence QC’s argument that the comments about Fenians were directed politically at the secret society formed on New York in the 1860s, namely the Fenian Brotherhood.)

I suspect that the Appeal Court may have considered that Mr Maguire well knew what INLA stood for and that it was within their “margin of appreciation” to uphold the conviction.

What if it had not referred to a proscribed organisation?

What if it only commented on the poppy?

What if it only mentioned the INLA?

I do not suppose that the police will use this case as authority for arresting people left right and centre for their abusive clothing. However, on the back of issues about policing at football matches, it will not help the atmosphere.

The biggest dangers come, I think, from two sources.

Firstly an over-efficient police officer might view the case as encouraging arrests of people wearing offensive clothes.

Secondly, it might lead to people making complaints to the police about people wearing clothing they deem offensive or which is provoking them to disorder. What happens to the next person wearing such a T-shirt if the police stop him? On the Maguire authority, they are guilty of breach of the peace, whether the slogan is deemed to be abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or whatever.

Posted by Paul McConville

(and not wearing an INLA T-shirt … just in case)



Filed under Criminal Appeals, Criminal Law, Human Rights

159 responses to “Is It A Crime To Wear A T-Shirt Supporting the INLA at a Rangers v Celtic Game? The High Court Says Yes

  1. Monti

    I believe the officers involved were neither thinking of Celtic supporters sensibilities, or the possible offense the said garment would cause among the Sevconian hordes, I personally think the arresting officers were of a ‘blue’ persuasion & they had to get somebody didn’t they? During the eighties & early nineties I wore Republican t-shirts to Celtic matches & rebel concerts,my favourite was a plain white t-shirt with a print of the gallant Bobby sands (RIP) on it,with his words ” everyone republican or otherwise,has his/her part to play” emblazoned on it,I wore this t- shirt with pride & many people shook my hand. This was worn also to antagonise the Police & Rangers (IL) fans. If i had my time again,i would do the same again. I think for some ( Celtic fans) it was just something you done,you get caught up in the Irish thing,you get bitten by the bug( if you choose & i chose). This guy who caused ‘offense’ will be just the same. How many Orange marches take place on our streets ‘ celebrating the killing of Catholics’? This is offensive is it not,so why aren’t they arrested for causing potential breach of the peace? I applaud the guy for wearing the t-shirt & fk the prawn tut tut sandwich brigade! GRAFFITI ON THE WALL…….

    • david

      So you were wearing clothes to deliberately antagonise people?
      That made you feel good?
      And you wonder why you are held in contempt? Unless it is another of your big-me-up lies like living on the Falklands and voting no in the referendum.
      Ive no time for Orange marches either but they do not celebrate the killing of Catholics per se, although many of their awful followers would.

      • Monti

        Now now your lacking tolerance there, aren’t you? The number of thumbs up I receive tells me there are people out there who agree with what I say ( at times) are they contemptuous as well? As I have said before, people don’t like what I say because it goes against the grain….so be it! Hail Hail!

        • david

          You crave support, dont you?
          People dont like what you say because its either downright lies ( living on The Falklands, for example ) or offensive, illiterate bigoted bile.
          You are frankly an embarrassment but cannot see it .

        • Robert Smith

          Only people who would agree with you are vile sectarian,terrorist loving bigots like yourself .It never fails to amaze me how people of this country give you and your like a platform to spout your bile and you should be ashamed to come to this country which educated,fed,clothed and housed you and give support to those vile murderers of iinnocent men ,woman and children the IRA.shameful.

      • Monti

        It made me feel great friendo,not good but great,free like the wind that shakes the barley,like the dove that flies among us, the chains broken forever, free like the dove,free like the dove!!!

      • Your defence of the Orange Order is admirable, but I’m afraid those who take part in the annual Orange marches have shown themselves to be deliberately provocative and highly offensive.

        And usually quite drunk.

    • Fra

      I can clearly remember being ordered by her maj’s constabulary to stop flying my tri-colour at Hampden (around 1982ish) as one half of the supporters flew red hand of ulster flags, union jacks? and other orange related banners with no hassle whatsoever. Now I would like to think it was because the tri-colour was a foreign flag but if that was the case, then this logic should have been applied all round the ground. I have my suspicions, just call it an inkling, that the said cops were of a certain persuasion and would probably have been congratulated by their superiors for successfully completing the said task.

      I’m with the guy with the t-shirt. When would the opposition fans have seen it? Freedom of expression doesn’t apply in Scotland when your leanings are of a Celtic/Catholic/Irish background. Anywhere else, the world over, the Irish heritage is welcomed with open arms, apart from this bigoted backwater.

      • Monti

        Eloquently put Fra,well said!

      • david

        Absolute balderdash

        • Fra

          What part are you referring to David or maybe the insinuation is I’m telling porkies. Let me state what the good policeman actually said. “Get that fuc@ing flag doon or your going to the jail.”

          He didn’t ask or didn’t say, the other side are putting theirs down so I suggest you do the same. It was a demand with the insinuation that because I was flying the tri-colour I was a Fenian and he wasn’t and because of his position, he could threaten me with an arrest if I didn’t heed his warning. If you don’t believe this happened then I would suggest you have been living in a cave.

          • Monti

            Just ignore him Fra,it says he isn’t a sevconian….mmmmmmm, must be a diet one from gorgie then…..

            • Fra

              Cheers Monti, I,m well out of the scene now but watching from afar, not much has changed as the GB found out to their cost. One rule for them and the rest (ie. us) can go f@ck ourselves. The bigoted backwater comment was not meant to be hurtful but after years of putting up with the corrupt forces, I decided enough was enough. Many people were quick to comment on the GB but have no inclination of how the Bhoys were on a kicking to nothing. No support from most and twisted lies to suit the lazy agenda of the right wing masonic establishment.

            • Marching on Together

              A supporter’s (sic) group which supports a cause which wants to murder one of its own players, deserves every kicking it gets.

          • david

            Im not insinuating anything.
            I couldnt care less what flag you fly, thats up to you.
            Fly the flag of Burkina Faso for all I care , or the Ivory Coast, in which case all you have to do is reverse the Tricolour.
            It just amazes me that people set out to be deliberately provocative then cry like babies when challenged.
            Scotland is no bigoted backwater although sad cases like Monti and his opposite equivalents try to make it so.

      • Robert Smith

        If you don’t like this country I don’t see anyone holding you back,you know what to do and take your obscene team with you,bye. bye.

        • Monti

          Why should he, who will pay your benefits & keep you in Kestrel & roll ups pmsl…GLASGOW IS GREEN & WHITE!!!

        • Fra

          Why doesn’t your country change its nasty little ways then good folk who left maybe will come back and make it much better. What we witnessed with the somersaults performed to keep your team alive with no punishments, reiterates all that is bad about Scotland.

  2. Marching on Together

    I saw a bloke wandering round Tescos (in a rural area) wearing a T-shirt which in large letters said “Cunt”. Nothing else. Me, I don’t care what people say or wear, and do not think the law should prohibit it. However, as for manners and proper conduct in society, the fact that many grannies and housewives doing their shopping were clearly offended by it, meant that I was this close to decking him for it. Clearly a breach of the peace.

  3. Why is it acceptable in our society to go out to antagonise other people? I don’t know about free speech but perhaps he should have been arrested for being a pain in the arse. But then the jails would be full wouldn’t they?

  4. Raymilland

    Is it a crime to wear a T-Shirt supporting an 18 club SPL?

    @ Carntyne Riddrie (@Riddrie)

    Insulting comments?

    Do you listen to yourself?

    BTW; Sky sponsorship has got hee haw to do with the SPL being unable to provide sufficient numbers of talented Scottish footballers. Standing up for CFC is all well and good; your narrow minded outlook is fairly typical.

    We all know that during the absence of TRFC; Celtic shall be able to nurture younger players and still win the league.

    With a restructured 18 club SPL (and TRFC in the appropriate lower tier) this would allow the majority of clubs in an expanded SPL to give youth a chance in certain games against the smaller clubs. I would imagine by now that everyone can grasp that notion.

    Is it the case that some would prefer to keep the status quo so that Celtic are the only team in the SPL allowed the luxury of fielding youth player more regularly?

    I’m all for keeping TRFC where they are; however; to be opposed to an expansion of the SPL purely for a reason to deter possible improvement to other clubs is not in the spirit that Glasgow Celtic represent.

    At this moment in time the entire argument is academic; unless SPL fan unite and demonstrate a strong desire to impose their will for significant expansion of the SPL.

    Let’s stop girning at each other and do something positive for the sport.

  5. parmahamster

    The killer line…”I suspect that the Appeal Court may have considered that Mr Maguire well knew what INLA stood for and that it was within their “margin of appreciation” to uphold the conviction.”

    Just as Carloway knew what William Walls meant when he was sounding off about “Fenians” – and knew that Walls knew what he meant as well – so the court knew what Kevin Maguire was about by wearing a t-shirt with INLA on it – and the court also knew what Maguire had in mind. If the t-shirt had referred only to the poppy, then the law would have had a hard time making any sort of charge stick. But INLA? Just what did he expect once the Old Bill clocked that? (Incidentally, what else are we supposed to infer from that list of previous convictions? Do me a favour…)

    Free speech or no, this was idiotic behaviour which had it coming.

    I await the TD’s.

    • JimBhoy

      @Parmahamster couldn’t agree more I guess we are both playing devil’s advocate on this one… I occasionally have a beer wi a guy with a large UVF tatt on his arm, I don’t care for it much but don’t feel the need to bring it into conversation, his choice years back..We have a good laugh about the fitba’…He had a son at celtic as a youth. 🙂

    • Renfrewdave

      Agree … All sane people know what gets under other people’s skin and we all know when we do it even as an accident. Some people just can’t help themsevles being a pain in the backside… Time to grow up
      .FTP could be taken as feed the people at a live aid concert or for another meaning at a football match. Situation and context saw the guy lifted

  6. JimBhoy

    Paul I am with the polis on this one… The guy was just daft and his previous shows that it wasn’t an isolated incident… Your point is basically where does all this stop and end, it’s all grey… I have a green Tee shirt, many others on here may have the same, it says I support Ireland (family from Monaghan) and any country that plays England…I wouldn’t necessarily go on a night out down Govan way with that on though, Why? Because some unstable eejit could take exception to that for reasons he may think are valid and believe it agin his Skewed values.. We all know there are dafties on both sides, maybe the Polis were just saving the guy from a doing…. Either way I hope he just grows up and realises that it doesn’t take much these days to provoke a reaction from a section of society..

    And before anyone jumps on this with the freedom of speech/expression bit etc, OK I agree in principle but back on planet earth where an old guy can get hit over the head with a hammer to rob him of a tenner, his only sin being old.. This is the society we live in.

    • Marching on Together

      IMHO he should have a right to exercise his freedom of speech by wearing that T-shirt, but he is a f*cking idiot if he does so.

      • JimBhoy

        @MoT Agreed mate Like I say some people need saving from themselves… Now where is my Rabid Rangers Hater tee shirt, ah next to my FCUK the queen hat… That was a joke BTW… It’s no spelt like that.. 🙂

        • Marching on Together

          This is why I boycott FCUK. Smartarse London advertising pricks, thinking they are so smart and edgy, but giving needless offence to grannies everywhere.

          • martin c

            My mother in-law presented to me for Christmas a t-shirt with FCUK U2 emblazoned across it and the only place i felt comfortable wearing it was when we were round at hers. It gave me and the wife no end of amusement and she would be mortified if she knew.

            Why would an INLA shirt be acceptable at a football match when it would not be acceptable at a place of work? Freedom of speech comes with a price?

            • Marching on Together

              I remember being at Elland Road (home of Leeds United) a few years back and someone had brought a pal along, who clearly did not know any better, but was wearing an England shirt. Except the England shirt was the red away version, and it was emblazoned with “Beckham 7” on the back. He got all sorts of threats of violence until he was prevailed upon to remove the shirt.

          • I boycott FCUK because their gear is overpriced tat sewn up in far eastern sweatshops by kids being paid pennies.

  7. Surprise , surprise , MONTIT, ” I used to attend matches with bobby sands t shirts ” lollollollollollollollol, how may goals did boaby score for sellick ? And a great role model … someone who thinks its a good idea to stop eating ! Brain of a fu@&ing rockin horse , what has the republican terrorist movement got to do with sellick ? I thought sellick were an all inclusive club ? I’m only surprised this ” comrade ” spelt it correctly . chocolate ARLA !

    • Bob Marley

      You answered your own question when you asked what has the republican movement got to do with ‘Sellick’ – its an all inclusive club. Even you are welcome!

  8. JimBhoy

    @Carson I hovered over giving you a TU just then, but then sanity kicked in.. I’ll save that for the next time you state something positive without looking to point score..

  9. Gentlemen , I have been hearted by the condemnation of most to this ” comrade ” I will always play devils advocate abvacate and look for a response when I think people are being hypocritical , but, this terrorist stuff on both sides is not on in this day and age , both sides ars gangsters and a stain on their communities , what surprises me when meeting people from the republic on holiday is that this crap is never mentioned , but take a walk through Glasgow and it’s full of it , on both sides , do these idiots , on both sides know that innocent people across the divide were murdered by these “freedom fighters “

    • not nearly dead but really dead

      are you for f@$king real!!!!!!
      devils advocate!!!!!!!!!!!!
      you have already proved you are on one ‘cheek of the same arse’ countless times on this blog, and you come out with this.
      i think ill take whatever you say with a pinch of salt.

      where is ‘Nulli Secundus’?

  10. MONTIT , you’d be the first to hide behind the army / police if you needed them .

  11. Richboy

    I have supported Celtic my entire life and, as a child, sang many of the songs that are now barred. In my childlike innocence I found no offensive overtones or hatred in these songs. When I realised the true meaning of these songs I stopped singing them.

    For many years I have been finding myself offside with some of my Celtic supporting friends. I do not associate my club with proscribed terrorist organisations, hatred of the military or glorification in the death of others. One friend also told me I am the only Celtic supporter he knows who supports the Conservatives and was a fan of Thatcher (cue abusive comments).

    I am proud of both the club and my Irish heritage. I think that Ireland is slowly but determinedly on its way to a political solution that was hampered by decades of intolerance and stupidity from both sides. As the great Dara O’Briain once said “It’s time to get over the awkwardness”. It is certainly time to stop bringing the “awkwardness” to a football club that wants nothing to do with it. Let’s leave that sort of behaviour to others.

    As for Mr McGuire, he needs to take a good look at himself and stop being such a muppet.

  12. SairFecht

    The guy is a FDU.

  13. JimBhoy

    You know who I blame in all this sectarian and bigotry stuff that Blights our bonnie country… The Welsh, I blame the Welsh, wi there funny wee accents that would put you to sleep, their harmonic singing and that Aled Jones feker… If the Welsh had kicked off more, been a bit more rebelious, had more of an agenda we would have another country in the UK& Ireland to hate…But naw they are just content being half English and having place names no-one can even pronounce without spitting… That’s who i Blame..The Welsh…!!!!

    I hate the Welsh tee shirts anyone? FTW? 🙂

  14. Off topic , but looks like jon Daly is open to a move to the mighty Rangers ! Great signing ! Love to see the big man in the famous light blue ! we are all Rangers deep down ! Welcome aboard big man .

  15. In keeping at least in part with the title of this blog the word ‘random’ comes to the fore.

    Scotland has an uneasy relationship with Irish politics.
    It’s fair to say that at an informed non partisan level there is nothing new, unusual or surprising about Irish politics.

    Take a look at the map of Europe, rotate it through history and what you see is an ever changing tapestry of colour, colour signifying nations.

    There are those who live and work in Ireland that take the view that the island as a whole should be united as one independent country, it’s a perfectly reasonable idea though naturally there are those who disagree. Disagreeing is also a perfectly reasonable position to take.

    What makes a certain element of Scottish society seem rather odd is that on questions of Irish politics we are unable to take a dispassionate view. So many of us are directly descended from that island from both sides of the divide we feel that their politics are our politics.

    In other parts of the world we have shown a great deal of clarity.

    In some ways imbibing the politics of another nation is a good thing, sometimes a wonderful thing. Many people throughout the wolrd opposed the oppression of racial minorities in America or spoke out against apartheid in South Africa. The Plight of people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are among others worthy of our attention today.

    No nation legislates for the big issues; we sign agreements from time to time, agreements which can never be enforced and are easily ignored.

    What we do enforce tends to be insular and consequently enforceable.

    The choice of T-shirt and its presumed consequences can merit the full weight of law.
    T-shirts are easily printed and people to wear them are easily found. Can the text on a T-shirt offend so much? Does the wearer put us at risk?

    I don’t think so.

    It seems we have a blind spot.

    Put Irish politics in the mix and we are all at sea, our actions, our laws betray us as being parochial.

    Not parochially Irish but parochially Scottish with an identity crisis, and a hardnosed attitude to applying law to issues that we singularly fail to apply our collective intellect.

    • Richboy

      Totally agree.

      The point was made earlier that people from the Republic and the North seldom mention the troubles, or each other, when abroad. The only people I have heard use sectarian language here in Australia are Old Firm supporters from Glasgow.

      I am not suggesting that there are not real problems in Ireland that need to be overcome. I am simply asking why Scottish born Old Firm fans feel the need to stoke the fires.

  16. to which we singularly fail to apply our collective intellect. My individual bad 🙂

  17. Richboy , I’m takin the credit for saying that , god knows I never get enough ! But it’s true people from the republic and most from Ulster just get on with their lives it’s idiots here who have probably never seen a pint of Guinness that are the problem ! The people I’ve met are the most friendly , funny and down to earth you could meet and BTW most support English football teams ! So the next time people are belting out terrorist crap , remember these people , on both sides have to live with this .

  18. Should the law always favour freedom over suppression ………….

    Last year’s Barry Thew judgement in Manchester went completely in the opposite direction …….

    Within hours of the killing of two policewomen in Manchester, Barry Thew was strutting around the streets wearing a T-shirt daubed with the words ‘One less pig, perfect justice’, and ‘’.

    Last October he admitted to a Section 4A Public Order Offence and was sentenced to four months imprisonment at court in Manchester,

    The police described his action as “morally reprehensible”‘ and indeed it was. It might also be described as offensive and vile. But should the expression of any view that could be considered morally reprehensible be grounds for conviction of any offence ???.

    Even offensive idiots surely must have the right to express their views. Is the fact that many people may be upset by them justification for the suppression of their views ?

    Could then someone be arrested if they were to wear a T-shirt claiming that ‘Jimmy Savile was a nice man’? ……

    The European Convention on Human Rights accepts that it is difficult to draw the line. Article 10 makes clear that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions that are “necessary in a democratic society”. These may include the protection not only of public safety and prevention of disorder but also the protection of morals.

    Paul’s choice of article is then very interesting, and may be a covert response to those posters questioning his lack of moderation more recently. In a sense, it is the same discussion.

    Comment is one thing, incitement is quite another, and there is clear differentiation in law.

    I would defend the right of someone to declare “I’m glad that Xxxxx Zzzzz is dead”, objectionable as I find it. I would though strongly object to a call to “Go out and kill Xxxxx Zzzzz “. The distinction is clear.

    Such arrests, imprisonment or community service order or similiar simply diminishes Britain’s moral authority in the world.

    We will do well remind ourselves that in this country you can be imprisoned for wearing the wrong T- shirt.”


    • Marching on Together

      “Could then someone be arrested if they were to wear a T-shirt claiming that ‘Jimmy Savile was a nice man’?” In the couple of weeks after the Savile allegations first surfaced, Leeds fans were singing “Jimmy Savile, he f*cks who he wants”. Nobody got arrested thankfully.

  19. GWG

    YES~~~~ the cretin should be banged up for “enticement” same as the Sevco fans that produce banners that read “Pedo Free In Div 3” ect……

    I remember I was standing in the check-in assemble at Malaga airport when some idiots (English) had black t-shirts on with the slogan “FUCK OFF” on the back of them, the Flight Rep asked one of them to take it off and he (being a smart arse) turned his back on her so she could see the FUCK OFF slogan ….. She asked them all to see their boarding passes and when they gave them her it she stepped back and said “now you can all FUCK OFF cause yer not boarding this flight with that on”
    A big round of applauses welcomed that~~~~ Morons !!!

    • I attend most game home and away and I never seen this ” pedo free in division 3 ” banner but I’ll take your word for it , but there is a serious question here what is fredom of speech and what is unacceptable ? I would not be qualified nor would I want the job to decide , but terrorist crap crosses the line ,how can anyone support these gangsters on both sides ?

  20. Belfastbhoy

    People from the republic don’t talk about the troubles because they don’t care it didn’t effect them that much. People from the north don’t talk about it because they know what that conversation leads to – and it’s not nice.

    People like Carson are full of it and don’t have a clue – probably done a tour here and thinks he knows it all.

    British army = worlds greatest ever terrorists know your history Ireland India Palestine Aden the list is endless

  21. parmahamster
    March 28, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    The killer line…”I suspect that the Appeal Court may have considered that Mr Maguire well knew what INLA stood for and that it was within their “margin of appreciation” to uphold the conviction.”

    Just as Carloway knew what William Walls meant when he was sounding off about “Fenians” – and knew that Walls knew what he meant as well – so the court knew what Kevin Maguire was about by wearing a t-shirt with INLA on it – and the court also knew what Maguire had in mind. If the t-shirt had referred only to the poppy, then the law would have had a hard time making any sort of charge stick. But INLA? Just what did he expect once the Old Bill clocked that? (Incidentally, what else are we supposed to infer from that list of previous convictions? Do me a favour…)

    Free speech or no, this was idiotic behaviour which had it coming.

    I await the TD’s
    everybody knows INLA stands for
    . . . Royal National Lifeboat Institution


    earlier poster made a good point – orange marches ARE offensive to a LOT of people, hence the amount of “security” needed, ironically, this “security” is provided by the police and paid for by “us”.

    maybe the kevin maguire should have bee surrounded and protected by the police, so the “offended” could not make it an issue.
    this is what happens during orange marches, is it not?

  22. portpower

    What if I plaster the front of my t-shirt(Green with White lettering) with INLA but written vertically I`ll Never Laugh Again. Could I be convicted for splitting hairs?

    • Marching on Together

      What if I plaster the front of my t-shirt (green with white lettering) with the words Green Brigade and then the letters INLA but written vertically Inside Neil Lennon’s Arse. Could I be convicted for splitting hairs?

  23. I find the Butcher’s Apron offensive!
    Just saying like!!

  24. How great it would be if Scotland was not effected by the politics of Ireland.

  25. MONTIT, are you offended by the famine Song , taking into consideration you agree with freedom of speech and fcuk the prawn sandwich brigade , your words not mine ?

  26. A thought provoking article Paul! I am all for freedom of speech and it takes an awful lot to offend me. People can wear what they want as far as I am concerned as long as their R S McColls are not swinging about in the street.
    There is a but though! If I had seen this guy’s shirt at a game years ago, I doubt it would even register, and if it did, no more than a passing glance
    Now I attend games with my daughter it would! And I would probably speed up, slow down, or cross the road. Not because of any offence, but because if there was any “trouble” around. It would probably be coming from,or directed at, this guy.
    I would have altered my position, albeit in a small way, not because I was passing judgement on this man, or his shirt, but because I am not daft!
    I have been in situation where missiles have been flying before, and it is not nice. This is the kind of thing which can be provoked in this instance. So with a heavy heart, I must come down on the side of the police in this case.
    I still think the guy has the right to wear it, but, I think the judge took the view that this was a gas leak in the vicinity of a lot of smokers. My view also

  27. portpower

    Can you be arrested for false advertising or made to cover it up?
    e.g. five stars.

  28. MONTIT , stop hiding do you agree with freedom of speech and expression ? Like singing the famine song ?

    • Marching on Together

      No he doesn’t. Like many he only supports freedom of spech for that speech with which he agrees e.g. the Green Brigade and their terror supporting, ‘supporting the murder of a Celtic player’ opinions, but not freedom of speech for the famine song.

    • Monti

      the famine song is offensive & illegal ….fkwit

  29. Monti

    Q. Can a citizen arrest a police officer if the citizen has been called a ( papish bastard) by the police officer? This happened to me when I was 17 at a game at the Reichstag! I mean what he said was sectarian wasn’t it,it was bigoted wasn’t it? This is a serious question I ask,I believe that I’m correct in saying a citizen can arrest another citizen if a crime is being committed,could someone clarify this? If this is the case the Green brigade should arrest the police if they feel a crime is being committed against them! Clarification please! P.S. I’m not going to conform to the mob who want supporters of Irish republicans silenced,I don’t seek thumbs up or down for my views,It’s not sectarian to be a republican! The hunger strikers & leaders of ’16 didn’t die & give their lives to be forgotten or to make people feel ashamed,they gave their lives for the freedom of their country,the bravest sacrafice you can make,they will be remembered,we will not be silenced,they are not dead! God bless the pope & the green brigade! The more they arrest the stronger we will become HH!

    • Marching on Together

      No, you can only ‘arrest’ for serious crime. Not what you describe. You should try it – it will give plod down the nick a good laff with his mates later, while you are awaiting your appearance in court on Monday.

      • Monti

        So you don’t regard sectarianism as a serious crime then? Would I be arrested for calling another member of the public an O.B.? Yes I would!

        • Marching on Together

          Unlike you, a police officer does actually have power of arrest for all sorts of crimes. By serious crime, I mean murder, serious assault, rape. Compared to that, pandering to a warped sense of victimhood, is not a serious crime.

        • david

          If being an offensive idiot was a crime, you would never be out of jail.

    • david

      More big-me-up lies?
      The Reichstag was flattened by the Russians in 1945. You must be 84 years old.
      It may not be sectarian to be an Irish Republican but it is offensive to talk in the gutter language that you employ.

    • GWG

      I got a broken noise from a Sargent @ Hampden for buying an Tricolour outside the ground …… after watching me buy the flag and “followed” me into the ground grabbed the flag and broke it in two and threw it away then he punched me on the face….. he didn’t arrest me because I was with six pals…. he was on his own….. HARD MAN!!

    • david

      I ( Monti ) fought the law, and the law won.

  30. Marching on , spot on he only want freedom of speech for what he agrees with , MONTIT , how can you disagree with the famine Song , but agree with the murder of children ?

  31. mick

    hail hail are the INLA not part of the peace process?it seems a bit much if it were i a would take the ruling to the euro courts its a other example of bad judgement

    on a more extreme note check out gio 1 of our commentors from last year lol

  32. mick

    the above topic is all the more reason for the 6 april protest lets hope the gov. listen to the fans there is lots of tshirts at ibrokes and celtic park on oldfxxm days well there were not now as rfc died

    • So Mick , montit , do you think the famine song is ok as freedom of speech ? And for you agree that the singing of songs prasing murder is ok ? … surely you can’t have it ways ?

      • not nearly dead but really dead

        you will be asking this question to your mates at ibrokes next time the famine song is sung to stop then?
        are you saying that t’rangers should be took to court?
        will you be filing the complaint yourself then?

      • JimBhoy

        @carson being a dick again…….

  33. Kenny

    Does anyone remember last year at the TUC conference at Brighton, a stallholder was selling t-shirts showing a tombstone with the legend : “A Generation of Trade Unionists will Dance on Thatcher’s Grave”. It was crass, tasteless and unfunny in my opinion. And that is the point surely – reasonable people will avoid slogans or images that will upset other reasonable people. The dafties will step over the line and the police need the powers to act to prevent the risk of distress to people or public disorder.

    If the guy had a t-shirt that said something like “James Connolly – hero and patriot”, he would know it referred to the Easter Rising, as would many Celtic fans, but the Gers fans and the Polis probably wouldn’t have a clue. He clearly set out to cause offence.

  34. ecojon

    One of the things that isn’t clear from the appeal case and might not have even been raised at the original court hearing is what the police saw first.

    Did they see the front or the Tee shirt or the back – and no matter what side it was does that not mean that they wouldn’t have seen the other side till they actually either arrested him or were right beside him.

    He could of course have been dancing about so that they did see both sides but I think it’s a pity we don’t know and if the solicitor didn’t ascertain this at the original trial then that was a mistake.

  35. It’s great time see the all inclusive club is alive and kickin !

  36. Paul, afraid your site is out of control now…Some of the garbage on here tonight unacceptable! .. Gone the way of many !
    .High quality informed comment replaced with obsessed low life half wits ….not sure if they are refugees from some of the sad sites..suspect they are
    Will give it a go in another month or so to see if you moderate them out Best of luck..very good enjoyed it while it lasted!

    • JimBhoy

      Examples dude?

    • cam

      When i saw the title of the latest blog.i knew where it was headed and who would be driving it there.
      The thing called Monti is using this site as a platform for his twisted mind.Carson, why are you even responding to it?
      I’ll sit back and watch what seems like a 17 year old attention seeker make a total clown of itself.

      • Monti

        Thing? Twisted? Itself? Hmmmmmm, when I look in the mirror I see none of these things, could you give me an example as to why you think these offensive words you speak of,apply to me?

    • Wasp


      Could not agree more. A site that was an oasis of relatively measured debate has, over the past few weeks been on a downward spiral. Some had done very well to keep their bigotry hidden but you just cannot stop it oozing out eventually….

      Some eye opening posts over the past couple of weeks and sadly the bulk of them from those who have spent the past year berating Rangers fans for the very same failings.

      Just reaffirms my long held view that both of these clubs have a fair share of idiots in their support.

      Like t.o.t.b., I am away till there is some modicum of moderation of what is, in many cases, nothing other than offensive comment for the sake of it.

      Plus ca change…….

  37. Monti


    • david

      So you are a terrorist lover.
      You would obviously have preferred more innocent civilians to have been killed in Gibraltar.
      Yet you have the gall to claim you do not support the killing of children, yet these 3 were no different to the the vermin who killed the children in Warrington.
      And before you reply, the loyalists were just as bad.

      • Monti

        Spanish I would say, like Ireland is Irish…..Falklands,Argentinian….would you like it if an Irish Soldier pushed you up against the wall & intimidated you on the streets of Scotland? Would you fk,you are a clown & a hypocrite!! I find you funny,funny like a clown…..

        • Marching on Together

          Aye, and Scotland is British, so you and the rest of the terrorist-loving morons can f*ck off back to under your ancestral stone to sing your folk songs in peace there.

          • Monti

            Nah it’s more fun here…..bye the way your intolerance of Carholics,Irish Catholics is shining through brightly,you are an embarrassing fool.

            • Marching on Together

              I am tolerant of all religions and races. I am intolerant of the bigoted untermensch who support the murder of kids while rotting their brains on booze and fags from the dole paid for by British taxpayers.

        • david


  38. Monti

    Just a wee reminder for all the bigot sevconians on here,David,Carson, & Cam,among others….50,000 IRISH REPUBLICANS gave their lives at the battle of the SOMME,250,000 IRISHMEN FOUGHT IN THIS WAR,FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE BRITISH……..THINK ABOUT THAT…..

  39. Monti


  40. Monti

    I see Sevco have set another ‘world record’ – they have sold the most replica strips …….in XXXXL size! Pmsl! David & Carson?

    • david

      Another juvenile attempt at humour from Billy Liar the pathetic inadequate bigot who has single handedly destroyed this site.

  41. Raymilland

    Carntyne Riddrie (@Riddrie)

    At least we agree on something; “The problems of Scottish football are financial.”

    “The mess is caused by TV money in England and elsewhere.” The only connection to that comment and the state of Scottish football would be due to SPL clubs paying players’ wages that they cannot afford to pay.

    The reason they pay over inflated wages is to avoid relegation from the SPL.

    You appear to be critical of Scottish clubs selling players to English clubs or to the ‘old firm’. That is what makes the wheels go round; and keeps clubs in business (or at least it did in the past).

    “There are still decent players being produced by Scottish clubs.” There are far too few decent players being produced in Scotland; and that is the crux of the problem.

    How many Scottish players at this time could be named as ‘international class’? How many could be named as above average?

    Your granny already knows that we cannot field a half decent international team.

    “Not being able to rely on the English market anymore has certainly had an effect on Scots clubs spending on their youth systems.”

    The reason English clubs very rarely plunder SPL clubs is due to the fact they have very little to offer in the way of big transfer player sales. English clubs will pay top dollar for any player whom merits the price whether he’s from Scotland or China.

    If that Scottish football was able to properly nurture youth in the SPL; many would eventually make the grade and could end up in England; that is the way of it.

    “There is no evidence that a bigger SPL will mean an end to financial problems in Scottish football.”

    In my opinion; I would rather watch football in a league where each club played one and other twice rather than four times. I do not mind watching Celtic play six teams from the 1st Division (there is not a great deal of difference between the bottom six of the SPL anyhow).

    Any change to the SPL that allows youth development can only benefit Scottish football.

    “I’d be interested to hear what the basis for your opinions are apart from assumption that everything will be OK if we have an 18 team SPL. That’s all it is. An assumption or perhaps a hope.”
    There are no guarantees in life my friend; there is only hope.

  42. Alexander Doherty

    Poppy why is offensive reason pro war on one side only speaking as a grandson of one who died for freedom of small nations god rest his soul a lost cause Ireland still not free.
    I wounder what this new Scotland will be like ( no Irish no none brits with there poppy)! No freedom just a wee brit on the outside waiting to be asked back again .God help them and there new police force not like the old one free and impartial .???????????

  43. Brian J

    I despair at those who do not see the wearing of such a tee shirt for the deliberate provocation that it was. The tee shirt itself was designed with a particular purpose in mind and was worn and displayed for that same particular purpose. It was political, it was deliberately offensive and it is the type of thing that serves to perpetuate the bigotry, hatred and wanton violence associated with football in our society and it is incumbent on the police and the courts to intervene on behalf of society at large to show that it is not acceptable and that we are looking to move on from the troubles that have plagued us for far too long.
    The whole thing must be seen in context. Anyone who can’t see the potential to provoke violence by such behaviour in the specific circumstances of this incident is wilfully blind to the facts.
    Consider the young lad murdered at Bridgeton Cross with his throat slashed just for being a Celtic fan on his way home from an OF match. Consider Raemon Gormley, similarly murdered on his way home from watching a Celtic game in a local bar. Consider the scenes in A&E depts across the West of Scotand after any OF game and ask yourself why it’s OK to set out to deliberately antagonise the opposition. Entirely innocent individuals end up victims of the hatred people like that generate. That’s why the police and the courts need to intervene before the violence erupts.
    Civil libertarians can bleat on all they like about the right to express their views. These rights are not absolute. They have responsibilities attached requiring that they are exercised responsibly.
    Nothing in this post should be read as to criticise one side over the other. There are elements in each side as bad as the other and the authorities should clampdown on each equally as hard. It may be that one side justifies its actions on the basis of a perception that they are treated more robustly by the authorities than their opponents. If that is the case then it is a policy of despair and will only serve to perpetuate the problem and as such it must be resisted.

    • Monti

      Morning Brian,
      . On a recent post of mine I gave an example of the POLICE themselves being sectarian & displaying institutionalized bigotry towards me on more than one occasion, what’s your thoughts on that? Just for the record I was wearing the Hoops at the time,not an ‘offensive t- shirt) the Hoops is offensive enough to some police I believe. Kids in the Green brigade are being bullied & thrown into puddles in the street by the police,meanwhile an Orange march get’s a police escort? I’ve heard some on here say Orange marches aren’t about celebrating the killing of Catholics ( oh yes it is) this to me is offensive,so why do they not get arrested? Why if they are not deliberately trying to intimidate Catholics,try to walk down Catholic streets” there is no balance in Scotland,Catholics/ Celtic have been treated as second class citizens for many decades in the workplace & society. 40,000 zombies can sing about ‘up to their knees in fenian blood’ & get a glowing appraisal from the JUSTICE SECRETARY!!! What’s your thoughts Brian? Neil Lennon attacked live on tv in front of tens of thousands & the guy got off with it? The Hearts fans booing at Hampden during a state ordered minutes silence for John Paul II after his death,why were they booing Brian? Answer these questions without trying to balance the argument,just answer the questions! If the Catholics & Celtic supporters in Scotland see the Sevconians,Hearts fans being so robustly challenged as ourselves,maybe then,only then will there be a change of mentality. Until then,until there is clear evidence of a complete level playing field in society, media coverage & football in Scotland, I would encourage all Irish Republicans who support more than one club in Scotland, display your republicanism,display your Catholicism & display your Celtic colours! It’s everything they don’t want you to be…..HH!

      • Brian J

        If the police act in a sectarian manner there are legitimate complaints procedures overseen by an independent commissioner. Aggrieved parties can also sue both the individual officers and the organisation if necessary.
        Orangemen singing offensive songs should be challenged and arrested. Sometimes they are, though not as often as I would like.
        Do you recognise the irony in your comment about the Hearts fans… They did it to be deliberately offensive and they, just like you, would argue that it is the civil right of freedom of expression to do so.
        That kind of makes my point that one sides actions are used to justify the others and a downward tit for tat spiral perpetuates the anger and bigotry. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
        There are appropriate forums and occasions for those so minded to publicly express their views on Celtic, Catholicism or Republicanism, my own view is that I cannot conceive of any single forum or occasion where all three issues coincide. All i am really saying is that expressing those views inappropriately or irresponsibly has consequences.

    • cam

      Brian,young Raemon wasn’t killed in the same sectarian manner as the young lad in Bridgeton.
      His death was the result of a justice system that failed due to not locking up the retarded piece of scum that killed him for his phone.
      The thing that carried out the Bridgeton murder shouldn’t be released,ever.

  44. david

    What is the issue?
    How does one display Catholicism?
    Would you do it as a perfectly correct and honourable profession of a deeply and sincerely held faith, or as part of a tribal identity?
    Religion/ Politics/ Football allegiance all seem to the same thing in your moronic mind.

  45. Jeff

    What the hell have the INLA got to do with Celtic? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
    As for freedom of speech, that is just a phrase people use to excuse their behaviour.

    People have freedom to vote at the ballot box, freedom of speech does not mean you can do or say whatever you want without consequence.
    Hail Hail

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s