High Court Confirms Draconian Nature of Offensive Behaviour Act re “Boys of the Old Brigade”

Today the High Court of Justiciary allowed an appeal by the Procurator Fiscal in Dingwall against the decision of a Sheriff to hold that there was no case to answer in relation to a charge under Section 1 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. The decision by the court, which was made up of Lady Paton, Lord Brodie and Lord Philip in the case against Joseph Cairns, which can be read in full here, makes clear the full extent of the Offensive Behaviour Act, and confirms that, effectively, if the police give evidence that a particular song or chant is likely to be considered offensive by a reasonable person, then an offence is committed, whether or not there is anyone there who was, or indeed could have been, offended.

Whilst this decision is a correct interpretation of the legislation, and therefore the Court cannot be faulted for its reasoning, I think it shows the draconian extent of the legislation, and the scope for abuse of it which there could be, in the hands of unscrupulous prosecutors or police. It also shows the inconsistencies in the legislation and in deciding in what circumstances an offence can, and cannot, be committed.

In addition, it clearly, as far as I can see, runs into conflict with the rights to free expression which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now, this is not to fall into the hysterical trap of saying that we now line in a police state, or that we are one piece of legislation away from being a totalitarian nation – but one can legitimately raise concerns without indulging in hyperbole!

Mr Cairns faced the following charge:

“(1) on 18th August 2012 at Victoria Park Football Stadium, Dingwall you Joseph Anthony Cairns, being a person in a ground where a regulated football match is being held, did engage in behaviour of a kind described in section 1(2)(d) and (e) of the aftermentioned Act, which is likely or would be likely to incite public disorder, in that you did chant phrases and songs in support of a proscribed terrorist organisation and make threatening gestures towards opposing fans; CONTRARY to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 section 1(1)”

 (I have struck through part of the charge which the Fiscal deleted at the close of the Crown case).

Two policemen gave evidence. At the close of the Crown case the defence solicitor argued that there was “no case to answer”. This effectively is a submission that, even if all of the Crown evidence is accepted as true, there is insufficient before the court to establish guilt. The Sheriff accepted this submission and finding no case to answer acquitted Mr Cairns.

The Fiscal appealed.

The relevant parts of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 provide as Noted at the foot of the article.

The Sheriff, in his report to the High Court, summarised the evidence of the two Crown witnesses. The full narrative is noted at the foot of this piece and is well worth a read.

The Sheriff explained his decision to uphold the defence submission. He noted that there were two elements to an offence under section 1(1) of the 2012 Act where, as in the present case, the Crown has led evidence of events related to a regulated football match.

The Crown must first prove that the accused had engaged in behaviour of a kind described in section 1(2). In this case, the Crown sought to prove that Mr Cairns had been guilty of behaviour such as is described in subsection 1(2)(e), that is behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive. The sheriff accepted that, in this case the Crown had led evidence which, taken at its highest, was sufficient to prove that the respondent had as a matter of fact sung songs the words of which expressed praise for Irish hunger strikers and contained a line about joining the IRA. He also took the view that it was conceivable that a reasonable person would consider it offensive if he were to hear such words in the course of trying to watch a football match between two Scottish football clubs on a Saturday afternoon in Dingwall. (Emphasis added).

The second element to the offence required the Crown had to prove that the behaviour in question was likely to incite public disorder or would be likely to incite public disorder. The sheriff found that the video recording which he had watched in the course of the witness’s evidence made it abundantly clear that, while Mr Cairns (and a great many other Celtic supporters), could be seen singing songs, it was quite impossible for the uninitiated listener to make out the words of what they were singing. Both the police officers who had given evidence freely admitted that they would have been unable to pick out the words of the songs being sung were it not for the knowledge that they had acquired in the course of their work as members of the FOCUS unit. These songs and the words of these songs, are accordingly clearly not familiar to the public at large. Even with their specialist knowledge, the police officers both required to study the video footage before they could confirm that the respondent could be seen singing what they regarded as the relevant offensive lyrics. The sheriff decided there was no proper basis for concluding that anyone who might have been incited to disorder would have been able to make out what it was that the respondent and others were singing (assuming that the respondent could in fact be seen to be singing at all by rival supporters who would inevitably have been much further from him than were the police officers who gave evidence). Since there was no proper basis for inferring that any person who might be incited to disorder would have been able to tell that the respondent was singing about the hunger strikers or joining the IRA there was equally no proper basis for inferring that the respondent’s behaviour was likely to incite public disorder

The High Court found that the Sheriff had erred in his analysis as stated above. He got wrong what the second element of the offence was.

The High Court started by detailing the wide extent of the legislation saying:-

[11] In enacting section 1(1) the Parliament created a criminal offence with an extremely long reach. In the present case no question arises as to whether the respondent’s behaviour was “in relation to a regulated football match” but it is to be noted that behaviour may be in relation to a regulated football match not only if it occurs in the ground where the match is being held on the day in which it is being held (irrespective of the time of day) or while the person is entering or leaving the ground but also if the person is on a journey to or from such a match. Moreover, in terms of section 2(4) of the Act a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated football match whether or not the person attended or even intended to attend the match. The behaviour which is relevant for the purposes of section 1 includes not only the specific behaviours described in paragraph (a) and (b) and (c) of section 1(2) but, in terms of section 1(2)(d), behaviour that is threatening and, as can be seen in the present case, in terms of section 1(2)(e), other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

The Court then went on to point out where the Sheriff had erred in paragraph 12 saying:-

It is by no means clear why the sheriff came to the view that there was no proper basis for finding that the behaviour was not likely to incite public disorder. Two police officers had given evidence that they recognised the song and heard certain of the words sung. … if the police officers were able to recognise the song and hear the words, other persons must also have been able to do so.

The sheriff appears to have adopted the view that the only candidates as persons likely to be incited to public disorder were the (apparently unperturbed) Ross County supporters. Why other persons might not be candidates, including persons standing close to or even among the “majority of the Celtic supporters housed in the north stand” is not explained by the sheriff.

The High Court pointed out that the Sheriff had not considered the effect of section 1(5) which provides that, for the purposes of section 1(1)(b)(ii), behaviour “would be likely to incite public disorder” if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that either measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers. (Emphasis added).

The Court then noted that two different categories of people were envisaged as “victims” under the Act. The Act considers “a reasonable person” in deciding if activities are to be taken as offensive and a person “likely to be incited to public disorder” for the second element of the offence.

The Court said:-

It may be that a person likely to be incited to public disorder is of a more volatile temperament than a reasonable person or, to use the language of the sheriff, an uninitiated member of the public. The person likely to be incited to public disorder may have particular interests and particular knowledge. He may have particular views about the two songs in question or those who sing them.

The key to the decision then follows:-

As section 1(5)(b) provides that such persons need not be present for the purposes of determining whether specific behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder, it cannot be relevant to the question as to whether there has been a contravention of section 1(1)(b) that particular persons in a football ground could not actually hear the words being sung. In other words the actual context within which the behaviour occurs is not determinative. Where behaviour falls within any of the categories specified in section 1(2) it is sufficient for conviction that persons likely to be incited to public disorder would be likely to be incited to public disorder by the particular behaviour, whether or not they were present in sufficient numbers and whether or not they were subject to measures put in place to prevent public disorder. As it does not matter whether persons likely to be incited to public disorder are there in sufficient numbers or are there at all it cannot matter whether or not the persons who are present (whether likely to be incited to public disorder or otherwise) actually became aware of the relevant behaviour.

The Court therefore allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the Sheriff. What will happen to Mr Cairns therefore is that the trial would effectively re-convene at the close of the Crown case, the “no case to answer” submission now being repelled. Mr Cairns therefore could give evidence himself and from witnesses to dispute the evidence that he was singing, or that he was singing the songs mentioned, or that the songs are NOT offensive to the reasonable person. That procedure will take place in due course.

But the implications of the case are as critics, including me, pointed out when the Act was still merely a Bill.

The High Court states that if a reasonable person would find a song or other activity “offensive” then a crime is committed if ANYONE would be likely to be incited to public disorder by hearing or seeing it, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE THERE OR INDEED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY PROPSPECT OF TRHEM HEARING OR SEEING IT!

Let’s take the “Roll of Honour” as the example.

Let’s imagine that Joe O’Bloggs holds a party where fellow supporters of the struggle for Irish independence, or indeed others who simply like the tune, join in singing the song. Joe later mentions in the pub that he and his friends had a good night in and that they sang the song. A police officer overhears this, and notes what Joe has said. Joe mentions that, whilst they were singing, Sportscene was on showing an SPL game. The officer is fully aware of the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, and as a member of the FOCUS team knows how offensive these songs are. The assiduous police officer makes enquiries at Joe’s neighbours who agree that they heard “Roll of Honour” being sung.

Now the offence is committed, whether or not anyone actually does anything about it, but in the scenario above, Joe and his fellow guests could face trial for singing a song expressing political opinions in private, having ensured that there was no one in the vicinity who might possibly have been offended.

It will be very easy for any reader to come up with a list of songs and chants which others would find “likely to incite public disorder”. Singing “Roll of Honour” in the middle of an Orange Order meeting would likely incite public disorder and would be an offence if a football match was on TV at the time.

Singing “The Sash” in the infamous old pub in Coatbridge, Phil Cole’s, would undoubtedly incite public disorder and would be an offence if a football match was on TV in the pub at the time.

As long as a “reasonable person” would find the song offensive, then an offence is committed.

Effectively therefore the effect of the High Court decision, which, as I said, is entirely consistent with the legislation, means that the second part of the offence becomes almost automatic. It is hard to see how a court could decide that a song would be deemed offensive by a “reasonable person” but that there would be no one who would be “incited” by it, especially where the person being incited is NOT required to be reasonable.

It is clear from the evidence of the police officers above that FOCUS has identified songs and chants which they are looking to prohibit.

The wide reach of the Act means that it is NOT only the singing of these songs at football games which is prohibited. A person sitting alone in his car driving to or from a football  match would commit the offence by singing a song a “reasonable person” would deem offensive.

A person driving to or from an Orange Walk however would not be committing such an offence, nor someone going to a rugby match.

A person driving to or from a  pub to watch a Scottish football game would be guilty of the offence in those circumstances, but someone driving to watch a Confederations Cup match on TV would not.

None of this is necessarily intended to be in support or otherwise of the songs discussed. That is not the point. The problem in all cases where there are efforts to control speech relate to the more marginal cases.

There are songs and chants which everyone would deem offensive.

But, a song about Bobby Sands, for example, could be argued to be argued to be about an elected Member of the UK Parliament. What about a song praising Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness? What about a song about Irish Freedom Fighters which did not mentions the IRA or a specific organisation?

PC Inglis, in his evidence, rejected the suggestion that a song about the Easter Rising in 1916 which mentioned the IRA was a very different matter from a song about the Provisional IRA of the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

As the Sheriff recorded:- It was put to him that the IRA was an organisation of a different character in 1916. He replied that people hearing a song about the IRA would associate the reference with the modern‑day IRA. His position was that singing such a song was showing support to a terrorist organisation and that, in terms of the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, this constituted an offence under section 1(2)(e) of the Act.

And PC Inglis confirmed that no one complained about any singing.

So what have we learned from the High Court today?

The Offensive Behaviour etc Act has a very wide reach.

One effect of that is that there are glaring inconsistencies in how the legislation can be effective – it might all depend on what football game is on TV at the time!

The police are giving evidence about what a “reasonable person” will find “offensive”, rather than having any “reasonable people” come to court to explain this.

There is clearly a wide range of political comment which could be deemed offensive and therefore almost automatically “likely to incite disorder”. This would be criminalised if there is a link to football, but not in other circumstances.

I suspect that, in due course, the Act will be considered by the European Court, but that is likely to be many years in the future.

Till then, be very careful what you sing at or on the way to and from the football – and be careful when football is on TV as well.

 

Posted by Paul McConville

 

1 Offensive behaviour at regulated football matches

(1) A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match –

(a) the person engages in behaviour of a kind described in subsection (2), and

(b) the behaviour-

(i) is likely to incite public disorder, or

(ii) would be likely to incite public disorder.

(2) The behaviour is

(a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of-

(i) a religious group,

(ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,

(iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

(b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any of sub‑paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),

(c) behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in any of those sub‑paragraphs,

(d) behaviour that is threatening, or

(e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) and (b), it is irrelevant whether the hatred is also based (to any extent) on any other factor.

(4) The things referred to in subsection (2)(a)(iii) are-

(a) colour.

(b) race,

(c) nationality (including citizenship),

(d) ethnic or national origins,

(e) sexual orientation,

(f) transgender identity,

(g) disability.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii), behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that-

(a) measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or

(b) persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers.

2 Regulated football match: definition and meaning of behaviour ‘in relation to’ match

(2) For the purposes of section 1(1), a person’s behaviour is in relation to a regulated football match if-

(a) it occurs-

(i) in the ground where the regulated football match is being held on the day on which it is being held,

(ii) while the person is entering or leaving (or trying to enter or leave) the ground where the regulated football match is being held, or

(iii) on a journey to or from the regulated football match, or

(b) it is directed towards, or is engaged in together with, another person who is-

(i) in the ground where the regulated football match is being held on the day on which it is being held,

(ii) entering or leaving (or trying to enter or leave) the ground where the regulated football match is being held, or

(iii) on a journey to or from the regulated football match.

(3) The references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to a regulated football match include a reference to any place (other than domestic premises) at which such a match is televised; and, in the case of such a place, the references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to the ground where the regulated football match is being held are to be taken to be references to that place.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (2)(a) and (b)-

(a) a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated football match whether or not the person attended or intended to attend the match, and (b) a person’s journey includes breaks (including overnight breaks).

4 Sections 1 and 2: interpretation

(1) Section 1(1) applies to-

(a) behaviour of any kind including, in particular, things said or otherwise communicated as well as things done, and

(b) behaviour consisting of-

(i) a single act, or

(ii) a course of conduct.”

 

The Sheriff’s Summary of the Evidence

“Police Constable Inglis gave evidence that he was a police constable of Strathclyde Police based at Govan police office, Glasgow. On Saturday 18 August 2012 he was attached to FOCUS (the Football Co‑ordination Unit for Scotland) and was tasked, along with his colleague PC Stevenson, to travel to Dingwall where a football match was due to take place at Victoria Park between Ross County and Celtic. The match was an SPL (Scottish Premier League) fixture and as such was a regulated football match in terms of the 2012 Act.

PC Inglis said that FOCUS officers attend football matches in full uniform, and that they are equipped with hand held video cameras and bodycams. He was trained in the use of this equipment, the purpose of which is to record offensive behaviour for use as evidence in court proceedings. The video camera has a screen which can be looked at while filming is being undertaken. The bodycam can be clicked on and off, and is effective for close‑up shots only.

PC Inglis stated that his specific duties on the day in question were to monitor the away support for offensive singing and/or behaviour. To that end he took up a position between the north and west stands at Victoria Park. The away support was housed in the north stand, with some away supporters also accommodated in the east stand. He described the stadium as being ‘fairly full’ and estimated that there were between 3000 and 4000 spectators in the ground.

PC Inglis said that he became aware of a song entitled ‘The Roll of Honour’ being sung from the north stand. His observations focussed on certain individuals who were singing the song, one of whom was the respondent who had his shirt off and had his hands in the air. He could hear the respondent singing the song. PC Inglis used his hand-held video recorder to film the respondent singing.

PC Inglis gave evidence that at half time, accompanied by a local officer, he spoke to the respondent in the concourse at the rear of the north stand and informed him that he was suspected of having committed an offence under section 1 of the 2012 Act. The respondent was told that video footage would be reviewed and that if it was found to show offensive behaviour further action would be taken. PC Inglis stated that a couple of days later, along with his colleague PC Stevenson, he reviewed the video footage that had been taken.

At this point the procurator fiscal depute played Crown Label 1, which PC Inglis identified as a DVD of the video footage that had been taken at the match. This DVD consisted of two separate sections of footage, the first of which related to the incident narrated above. PC Inglis said that he could identify the respondent singing some of the words of ‘The Roll of Honour’. PC Inglis then watched the second section of footage (which had been recorded later on during the match) and said that he could say that the respondent was singing the line ‘I joined the IRA’ from the song ‘The Boys of the Old Brigade’. He said that he had been able to hear the respondent singing this at the time he recorded the video footage.

The procurator fiscal depute asked PC Inglis about the songs he had mentioned in his evidence. PC Inglis stated that he knew the words of these songs as a result of his work with the FOCUS unit. He was not familiar with these songs before that. He had now learned that both songs tend to be sung by Celtic supporters. ‘The Roll of Honour’ is about the hunger strike in the early 1980s. The persons named in the song are the ten paramilitary prisoners who died during the hunger strike. PC Inglis had learned that these persons were associated with the IRA and the INLA, both of which he understood to be prohibited organisations. ‘The Boys of the Old Brigade’ is a song which refers to the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland and contains a reference to joining the IRA.

PC Inglis further stated that he and his colleague had reviewed the video footage on a frame by frame basis. Having done so he was able to say that, at one point, the respondent could be seen to be making a gesture which PC Inglis could interpret as mimicking the loading or firing of a rifle into the air. This was a gesture which he said he had seen before and he believed it was intended to mimic a paramilitary action. The video footage was played and stopped on a number of occasions until eventually it was frozen at a point where PC Inglis said that this gesture could be seen on the screen.

In cross examination, PC Inglis estimated that there were a total of maybe 2500 Celtic fans at the match, many of whom were singing. It was put to him that the IRA was an organisation of a different character in 1916. He replied that people hearing a song about the IRA would associate the reference with the modern‑day IRA. His position was that singing such a song was showing support to a terrorist organisation and that, in terms of the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, this constituted an offence under section 1(2)(e) of the Act.

PC Inglis confirmed that he was unaware of any reaction from the home support to the songs that were being sung. Nor was he aware of any complaint having been made about the singing.

PC Colin Stevenson was the second Crown witness. He also spoke to being a member of the FOCUS unit who attended the Ross County v Celtic match (a regulated match in terms of the 2012 Act) at Victoria Park, Dingwall on Saturday 18 August 2012. Once inside the stadium he was positioned beside PC Inglis in the northwest corner, facing the majority of the Celtic supporters housed in the north stand. PC Stevenson was wearing a bodycam. He was aware of his colleague operating a hand held video camera.

PC Stevenson said that, shortly before kick-off, the majority of Celtic fans in the north stand were singing ‘The Roll of Honour’. Like his colleague, PC Stevenson said that he had become familiar with the words of this song as a result of his work with the FOCUS unit. He had also become familiar with the words of the song ‘The Boys of the Old Brigade’. He understood the former to refer to the hunger strikers who died in the 1980s and who he understood to be connected to terrorist groups. It was his understanding that the latter referred to the 1916 rising. The song contains a line about joining the IRA. PC Stevenson said that he recognised the song ‘The Roll of Honour’ as soon as the Celtic fans started to sing it. (The clear inference from this evidence was that he recognised the tune). He subsequently (some days later) watched and reviewed the first clip of video footage that his colleague had taken at the match. He was asked by the procurator fiscal depute to view the footage and on doing so identified the respondent as a person singing the lines from ‘The Roll of Honour’. He said that his attention had been drawn to the respondent because of his demeanour: he was quite vociferous, and was singing in the direction of the home support.

PC Stevenson said that, while he had not been aware of it at the time, review of the video footage had led him to the opinion that, at one point, the respondent made a gesture which mimicked the loading or shooting of a rifle. That was, he said, something he had seen being done previously by Celtic fans. He understood the gesture to be associated with the IRA. He said that, on this occasion, the gesture did not appear to be directed towards anyone.

PC Stevenson was then asked to view the second clip of footage taken by his colleague. He said that, although he had not been aware of it at the time, he could now say that it appeared to show the respondent singing lines from ‘The Boys of the Old Brigade’. PC Stevenson then went on to give evidence about the respondent being spoken to at half time and the subsequent review of the video footage. He also stated that he subsequently arrested and charged the respondent.”

Advertisements

286 Comments

Filed under Criminal Law, Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill

286 responses to “High Court Confirms Draconian Nature of Offensive Behaviour Act re “Boys of the Old Brigade”

  1. Monti

    Campbell Ogilvie is now on an annual salary of £280,425, after receiving a 13% wage rise!
    At a time when Scottish football is going through an awful period, with one club I liquidation & 2 others in administration, how can this be justified?
    For fans of most clubs there is a feeling the game is corrupt in Scotland from the very top of the game, Regan, Ogilvie & Doncaster are nothing more than a shambolic,clueless trio of comedians & in one case possibly corrupt!
    The national side has not qualified for any tournament since France ’98, in my opinion with a record like that Hampden bosses should be getting their wages reduced.
    Scottish football needs cleansing & it should begin with the immediate removal of Ogilvie & his pals.
    P.S. When I say Scottish football is a mess I DO NOT include Celtic in the litany of problems, as last years Champions league last 16 position, lifted Scotland’s profile across Europe.
    anyway time for breakfast before work…….Campbell pass me the SHREDDIES!

    And some say crime doesn’t pay?

    • JohnBhoy

      Morning Monti. Have a Heart! Oor Ogi worked at Rangers and looked what happened to them; and he worked at Hearts and looked where they’re heading. He’s got the opposite of the Midas touch. Time to get out the black suit and tie that I wore last year. Thanks Ogi.

      Bring me joy in my heart bring me Lennon, bring me joy…

    • Anonymous

      It’s the Daily Record. They are woefully wrong.

      He gets £20k per year.

      • willy wonka

        Shhhhh! Anon. Just let them rant. It’s the Daily Record. It just MUST be true. Lol.
        They print a story by a freelancer [Scott McCullough] where the halwfit firstly has Ogilvie as SFA chairman and then instead of recognising that Ogilvie earns £20,000 a year, in fact credit him as receiving Stewart Regans salary. Haw Haw Haw !
        To go further they then tie Ogilvie to the financial problems at Hearts.
        Meanwhile Mirror top dog Rennie is sitting in a locked room with Mssrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne trying to prevent them putting the final financial nail in the coffin of the Record.
        I wonder if the halfwit McCullough has a season ticket at Porkheid. Lol.

        • willy wonka

          And worst of the lot – the Record previously printed a story just a wee while ago about Regans salary.
          Haw haw haw.

  2. JohnBhoy

    LET THE PEOPLE SING

    Offensive behaviour should not be criminalised. It is a clear erosion of our freedoms. When even judges, figures of the establishment, consider the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 to be draconian then citizens should be alarmed.

    Rangers past were an offensive and grotesque relic of a bygone age where It was acceptable to discriminate against Catholics for over a century and celebrate their death in song. The authorities looked the other way. Now the SNP, to save avoid tackling the root of the problem, shamefacedly tar Celtic with the same brush and so enact a law that is ill-conceived and erodes the very freedom it pretends to protect.

    Support for the IRA was not support against a particular religion but support for a united Ireland. Let them all be Catholics or Protestants or people of no faith or mixed. Rangers fans sang, and some still do, about killing Catholics while Celtic fans sang, and some still do, about a united Ireland or those who died for that cause. Therein lies the difference.

    I find the anti-Catholic songs sung by Rangers fans deeply offensive but I would not want any Rangers fan to be subject to a criminal charge because of my sensitivity. That is for the club and its fans to discuss, comparing their behaviour against national morals and public opinion. Likewise with Celtic and the singing of political songs. Barcelona is a club rooted in a political past. Their odium against Real Madrid, who epitomised an oppressive and conservative Government, is represented in their songs. Celtic too has a political history. Ban political songs and we will soon be banning political slogans then political articles then political poems, and so on. Zero tolerance sounds too much like zero freedom.

    The Orange Walk is a different matter altogether. It is not a group of people singing in a private club, or one or two fans on the way to a game – it is an orchestrated march in public, with permission from the State, to honour the killing of Catholics. That this wee country gives support to such an event is an offense to a civilised nation. When a nation itself supports such a divisive and inciteful anachronism then it is time for that nation to have a good, long hard look at itself.

    It would be wholly indefensible and morally corrupt to criminalise citizens for singing “offensive” songs, at either Ibrox or Parkhead or elsewhere, and yet allow the Orange Walk to march through our public streets every year to the celebratory sound and beat of flute and drum, celebrating the death of Catholics.

    • Monti

      ….THEIR STORIES & THEIR SONGS & THE MUSIC OF OUR NATIVE LAND!

      WELL SAID JOHNBHOY! HH!

    • Ed Pàislig

      Great post Johnbhoy.
      I have memories of me and my seven siblings rushing out to watch the orange parades and enjoying the music and the theatre of it all. We are all RCs and many of my school friends were there too – that was Johnstone in the early 70s. I have never felt threatened or intimidated by these parades – even now I find them amusing and certainly anachronistic but not intimidating or threatening.
      I think since that time the marches are dying a slow natural death – who wants to be associated with overweight tattood drunks banging drums.
      Let the marches die at their own pace – mixed marriages and the changing demographics of Scotland will achieve that in short order.
      Let us also clean up our act as citizens and football supporters without recourse to criminalising this behaviour – then when the situation improves and the hateful songs dissipate, then we can all take credit for our achievement.

      • JimBhoy

        @JohnBhoy, Ed 2 very good posts, like yourself Ed I used to love the marches going by as a kid, My Da was brought up protestant but was never really practicing any faith, a bit like me. My mother on the other hand went to the chapel often and I reckon we went to a catholic primary school because it was closer than the non denominational which was across a busy road… I may be wrong in that assumption but it doesn’t bother me…My point is and probably backs up your statement, I have never really had a strong swing either way on any religion, I would be a hypocrite to express a strong opinion as most of my brothers and sisters families and cousins etc are mainly protestant. It never has presented me any problems whatsoever… My kids are at catholic schools that are open to any religion and have a large non catholic base and I do not hear any bad stories from them on religious grounds.

        On the marches themselves, I do see a lot of young boys involved, suited and booted, many of whom I have seen drinking and very much the worse for wear as they travel to the designated meet point and many drunks litter the roads after the events for that I would suggest is unacceptable. It just seems to be a tribal p!ss up at the cost of the tax payer…. I once read of a Hibs walk from one end of wishaw to the next (less than a mile), there was a band of about 15 strong and a couple of dozen followers, the policing with dogs and a helicopter cost £250k apparently over 10 years ago… Madness, for that alone I would ban ALL religious walks and build a couple of new hospitals every 3 or 4 years with the savings.

    • Anonymous

      Therein lies the problem on both sides of the Glasgow coin again.

      Both believe the other is the worst.
      Both believe they do nothing wrong.
      Both believe they are the best.
      Both believe their songs are ok.
      Both believe the other songs should be banned.
      One thinks their songs are heritage and should be allowed
      One thinks their songs are political and should be allowed
      Both dont realise that there are thousands of arseholes in their own support who spoil it for the tens of thousands of non arseholes.
      The worse of them can be found on the internet sites.
      And a few of them on here.

      Deja Vu anyone ? 🙂

      • JimBhoy

        @Anon Deja vu AGAIN..?

      • K19

        Perfectly summed up! And ironic that the person who sums it up best must remain anonymous – in case the biggest ‘arseholes’ of all (from both sides) try to find out who he/she is and beat the crap out of him/her for daring to take a neutral viewpoint?

        My view of the original post? The Sheriff was clearly wrong and it was correct to get clarification. The guy singing the song should be slapped across the legs, along with the rest of the weans involved, and then they should be made to stand in the corner facing the wall for the rest of the match.

    • david

      Utter and complete drivel.
      I have no time for the Loyal Orders, but they are dedicated to celebrating the triumph of Protestant liberties over Catholic absolutism and despotism.
      We all know, however how their neanderthal hangers-on turn that into sectarian behaviour.
      However, they can in no way be compared to a vile and cowardly murderous sectarian proscribed terrorist organisation who terrorised the people they purported to be protecting.
      Thank God the good guys won and the IRA were defeated.

  3. Ed Pàislig

    Hi cam,
    You like to scour the internet for interesting news items.
    Did you miss this: “the government are opening the last remaining files of its former UFO desk . It is hoped that the files, released to the National Archive today, will solve the mystery of the massive growth of moonbeams from 1988 until 2012 when the planetary shit hit the celestial fan”.
    Any ideas cam?

    • cam

      Morning Ted,i do hope your moobs aren’t all sunburnt,after getting them out in the park yesterday and doing your gangsta rap version of the potato song.
      Now to the matter that you have lobbed through my cyber windae.
      As you’re aware Ted,in the formation of the solar system, the proto planets were struck countless times by asteroids,meteors, Greggs pies,Subo’s knickers and other detritus.There is a school of thought that life on earth was sparked by spores from Mars,this may explain the behaviour of Mick and Monti.
      The glorious period that you speak of in reverent tones,was a high point in Earth’s cultural history.The aggressive ecto plasmic primordial slime that had been forming in the crater in the east,was getting out of control and was mutating into something horrific,yes you’ve guessed it Ted,Homo Brigadus Verde.By using mirrors(no smoke) Admiral Murray with help from Captain Souness,Major Advocaat,Colonel Mcleish and the Holy Father,Moses Smith,concentrated the moonbeams onto the slime and zapped them.
      Unfortunately,due to some idiotic American banking maniacs,a global recession dried up the moonbeam supply and a sleekit little saboteur called Arty grassed up that Admiral Murray was stealing moonbeams from the state supply.Of course this lie was false but the desired effect was achieved.
      The slime has now re emerged and unspeakable horrors like Stokus Mankius and the out of control weed, Lennonicus Bitterus,are threatening normal evolutionary processes.
      Our hero Space Admiral Smith is hard at work steadying the ship and we’re working on a death ray,which involves feeding a volunteer endless amounts of pies and firing him at the east end crater whilst whispering in the ear of the raging weed.Earlier trials showed signs of success.
      Space Cadet Cam must leave now to watch his daughter at her leavers assembly,,,but i shall return Ted.
      Just remember, in the space between your ears, no-one can hear you scream!

      • arb urns

        good luck to mistress cam, cam, hopefully she will have more of mrs cams neuron types but a sprinkling of yours included be no bad thing. guess u got her spruced up like a brand new belisha and hopefully she leaves the mace under the seat when marching up at laurel time…… got the sb yet ?

        • cam

          I have, to my eternal damnation, bestowed upon her an inappropriate sense of humour.She doesn’t do boring!
          Fastest girl in her school,i can’t beat her anymore, and i could shift,,,aah time waits for no Cam.
          Clever enough and not brainwashed to take any part of the great divide seriously.Her mind is untainted by this insanity.
          The only noble purpose each of us serve,is to contribute some small value to our offspring, in the hope that somewhere down the line a halfways decent specimen of humanity evolves.
          The SB is still unpurchased,i have fell out of love with Scottish fitba.There are no entertainers,nobody to get you off your seat and marvel at their skill.
          The tribal spat is in cold storage and the clubs are going down like ten pins.
          The only fun? to be had is winding up gullible maniacs.

  4. Anonymous

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1

    Glorification of any proscribed terrorist group is illegal under the amendments made to the 2006 act.

    “Glorification is defined to include praise and celebration.”

  5. JimBhoy

    http://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/
    BRTH can really put a story together, unfortunately he doesn’t post much on here anymore so I thought I’d share his post. Its is an excellent read.

    • cam

      That guy can fair chunter! Imagine being a call centre worker and copping for him?
      He does like the long scenic route to delivering his anti Rangers message.
      Just think all that education,reading,researched quotes and time,dedicated to the same game that the less cerebral foot soldiers in the tribal war play.
      When you think of it in those terms it actually becomes quite sad.

      • Ed Pàislig

        Notice to casual readers of this blog – if cam expresses his lack of interest in a particular blog or news article someone has referenced, it usually means it is a bloody good read.

        • cam

          Notice to Paisley casuals — if you scan my syntax(what you put in the chapels collection plate) i never said it wasn’t well written or a good read.
          If you wake up in the morning and your first thought is what can i say/write that is bad about the Rangers,then i think that you may have taken a wrong turn at Albequerque.
          An edumacated chap has no excuse for obsessing about a 3rd division club.
          Now give us another song Ted.

      • arb urns

        cant b sad cam that one man through his ‘gratuitous alienation’ pays back all his creditors when he legally didnt have to…. feeling inspired walt ?………

        u kno it makes sense…. give us all back the quadruple whammy your old clubco have hit the ukplc tax take with as things stand

      • willy wonka

        @cam, Just about as sad as a person can get. Imagine even considering spending your time researching that to have a pop at Rangers.
        Truly obsessive and deluded.
        Thank Christ he doesn’t post here any more .
        Lol.

    • Ed Pàislig

      Thanks Jimbhoy. This is a devastating article and everyone should read it. Regan and Ogilvie are treating the Scottish football public as imbeciles. Ogilvie’s professing a lack of knowledge of the EBTs and secret contracts is so implausible that I am greetin’ and laughin’. But mostly greetin’ because Peter Lawwell must be supporting these guys or there would have been oot oan thur arses.

      • Raymilland

        Ed, unless I’m mistaken, it would appear that Lawwell would support the notion of a tainted ‘old firm’. His inaction is breathing life into the corpse. To be perfectly frank; I would prefer to watch junior football than a corrupt cobbled together SPFL.

        • willy wonka

          That’s because Liewell knows what side his bread’s buttered on.
          There is no “old firm”.
          And I for one am delighted.
          The sooner those inside Ibrox cut off all ties with any “old firm” the better.

          • Raymilland

            The sooner those in Ibrox pay their debt the better.

            • willy wonka

              @ray – There is nobody “inside” Ibrox who owes anything.

            • Raymilland

              @willy wonka

              Perhaps the prize money, to which you refer, covered the PAYE and NIC liabilities. Can you provide any figures for the tax/nic liability (I’ve had no luck finding reference to that sum)

              Any outstanding tax on players’ wages or that of staff members is a debt which must be paid (it would come under the same criteria as a footballing debt).

              If the above liability was not settled, then the question which should be asked is; who is responsible for allowing transfer of the oldco license while pertinent debt is outstanding?

              No prizes for guessing!

              Perhaps the same approach is being made in regard to the EBT claim; i.e. matters are pending unfinished business; which shall require to be faced head on eventually.

              You can repeat and embolden your text that the above PAYE/NIC is not a footballing debt; although, you would fail to convince (If not defined by the SFA as such; it would carry the equivalent ultimatum of payment).

              It would appear that the above issue has yet to be addressed by the relevant parties.

      • JimBhoy

        Read his earlier article on Yifter the shifter…

        • willy wonka

          Ray, you don’t disappoint do you ?
          That must be what, 9 or 10 times now you’ve asked about tax and national insurance. Despite me giving the same answer, you just keep asking the same question.
          There are NO footballing debts outstanding.
          However, to indulge you – tell me, did the money from the fines Rangers were subject to go towards paying the players tax and insurance ?
          No ? Why not ? After all, according to you Rangers owe footballing debts. Surely those debts would be paid by the SFA from those fines and the withholding of prizemoney rather than just salt the money away to give Regan a pay rise ?
          The EBT’s have been dealt with. I’ve answered. You’re not listening and prefer to dream about outcomes which just are not going to come about.
          If they ever do, please feel free to approach me on the subject and I’ll oblige you.
          But you know what ? I won’t be sitting on a chanty waiting for it. Lol.

    • K19

      That almost had me in tears. Great story, well told.

  6. cam


    Go Ted,Go Ted!

    • Ed Pàislig

      I’d like to teach
      the world to sing
      in perfect har-mon-ee

      I’d to see the Sevco die
      with pain and mis-er-ee

      Sorry cam – I think I’m doing the Coke commercial.

      (Slimcea advert circa 1975)
      He flies like a pig
      through the sky- y-y-y
      He flies like a pig
      and consorts with ex-trem-ists
      It’s Andy Go-o-o-r-am

      • Ed Pàislig

        If anyone is offended apart from the camster, I am deeply sorry and I didn’t intend to cause distress.

        • Monti

          Ed I am extremely unhappy with your mocking of the new club, you are a bigot! Do you hear me? a bigot!
          You wouldn’t catch me poking fun at the the rangers, your really bad! Tut tut. 🙂

      • cam

        It was Nimble Ted,,,jeez i can’t rely on you bigots to get anything right!

  7. So just so I’m clear, its okay to sing “Soldiers Are We” at Murrayfield but not at Easter Road or Tynecastle. How very locationist!

  8. willy wonka

    Monti has previous for making an erchie of himself and then ignoring anybody who points it out. To refresh –
    “Monti
    June 21, 2013 at 8:11 am
    Campbell Ogilvie is now on an annual salary of £280,425, after receiving a 13% wage rise!
    At a time when Scottish football is going through an awful period, with one club I liquidation & 2 others in administration, how can this be justified?
    For fans of most clubs there is a feeling the game is corrupt in Scotland from the very top of the game, Regan, Ogilvie & Doncaster are nothing more than a shambolic,clueless trio of comedians & in one case possibly corrupt!
    The national side has not qualified for any tournament since France ’98, in my opinion with a record like that Hampden bosses should be getting their wages reduced.
    Scottish football needs cleansing & it should begin with the immediate removal of Ogilvie & his pals.
    P.S. When I say Scottish football is a mess I DO NOT include Celtic in the litany of problems, as last years Champions league last 16 position, lifted Scotland’s profile across Europe.
    anyway time for breakfast before work…….Campbell pass me the SHREDDIES!
    And some say crime doesn’t pay?”

    Er, http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4978519/OFFICIAL-The-day-late-Record-know-SFA.htm

    “BUNGLING Daily Record sports hacks are running for cover this morning after a spectacular own goal on their back page.
    The fading tabloid trumpeted an “exclusive” proclaiming that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie had been given a £33,267 wage rise to take his salary to £280,425 – up a whopping 13 per cent.
    They then stuck the boot into the former Hearts supremo for landing the pay bump on the day his former club dumped 14 staff on the dole after lurching into administration.
    The story, though, is MILES off the mark. Ogilvie, in fact, is an SFA office-bearer not an employee and it is understood his Hampden duties earn him around £20,000 a year.
    To make matters even WORSE the scratchy old Record ran a story with the SAME wage figures in their edition on Saturday May 25.
    That time, though, they attributed the salary to the right man in SFA chief executive Stewart Regan.
    SFA staff are seething at the slight on the highly-respected Ogilvie and an official SFA tweet this morning read: “To clarify story in today’s @Daily_Record totally incorrect. President’s salary is £20k not £280k as reported.Apology expected in print.”
    Now we at Sunsport like a kick at officialdom more than most but slaughtering Ogilvie for pocketing another man’s wage packet is just plain wrong.”

    Whaddaya say Monti ?
    Haw haw haw !

    • Raymilland

      £20,000? No’ bad for sitting on your arse.

      • willy wonka

        Look at how much Regan is on. A wage rise recently too.
        All that money to sit there while Liewells hand goes up the back of your jumper to operate your mouth ?
        Nero, a violin and a big fire comes to mind.

        • Raymilland

          Slippers and pipe in front of the fire, early retirement comes to mind.

          Some might prefer a custodial sentence.

    • barcabuster

      @Willy
      The DR obviously include his “expenses and benefits”. 🙂

      • Monti

        Maybe it’s £20,000 not including an EBT 🙂

        • willy wonka

          Oh, you’re back Monti. What about it ? Made a baboons rump of things this morning did you not ?
          I realise it’s not for the first time. Lol. But even by your low standards that was an absolute howler.
          Well played !
          Haw haw haw.

          • willy wonka

            Come on Monti – that’s nearly two whole days now and still nothing.
            You’ve a big gub when it comes to spouting your nonsense. Surely you’ve SOMETHING to say ?
            Thought not.
            Lol.

  9. mick

    is it not strange the sfa mentioned in a tweet the dr and sun were wrong in the wage rise but we and most bloggers mention them every day and they ignore us and Charlotte just gos to show you that if its not in msm then they don’t comment there is lots of people lining up to do story’s on them a wonder if they will comment on it wont hold my breath thou for it

    • Niall Walker

      @mick

      ” but we and most bloggers mention them every day and they ignore us ”

      Check the gossip columns.

  10. mick

    if the sfa upset the record and sun this just might lead to them printing things about Charlotte heres hoping lol

    • willy wonka

      Mick, you and many others of your ilk constantly “comment”.
      Charlotte has already flogged her mutton around the media and had absolutely NO takers. Not even Thomson.
      Here’s a nice bit of news regarding those making “comment” –

      ” Graeme Morrice (Livingston, Labour)
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by the Police Service of Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal West of Scotland in their investigation into alleged leaks of confidential information relating to Glasgow Rangers FC’s tax details.

      Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 20 June 2013, c764W)

      Damian Green (Ashford, Conservative)
      An investigation into alleged leaks of confidential information relating to the tax details of Murray International Holdings Ltd, the former majority shareholder in Rangers Football Club, and its owner and former Chairman of the Club, Sir David Murray, is being carried out jointly by the Economic Crime Unit of the Police Service of Scotland and HM Revenue and Customs. The Procurator Fiscal for the West of Scotland is liaising closely with law enforcement about the progress of the investigation. As the investigation is ongoing it would not be appropriate to comment.

      • mick

        goodafternoon willy did you notice the dublin match is a sell out a noticed you mentioned it the other day ,the bloggers are whistle blowers theres no case to answer lol

        • willy wonka

          What “dublin match” ? Wasn’t me who mentioned it. Are Rangers involved ? If not, I couldn’t care less.
          “Whistle blowers” ? I think not mick.
          Not as far as the criminal law of this country is concerned anyway.

      • barcabuster

        .@Willy
        I believe the issue with Charlotte is related to the provenance of her releases. I have yet to read anywhere of any doubt related to the content.
        As such, there may be some doubt over whether they may actually become “evidence”, but the revelations certainly paint a murky picture of all involved.
        If the spivs succeed, the ordinary bears will be paying through the nose for years to fund their(the spivs) retirement plans.
        If they fail, so does the tribute act.
        At least Cha is bringing us closer to the truth, despite the best attempts of Sevco themselves, and the authorities.

        • willy wonka

          Barca – Mick seems to think there’s some [yet another] conspiracy going on leading to fakes rubbish not being in the mainstream media.
          The MSM aren’t interested in it, simply because, apart from the deluded and fairytale-tellers amongst the Celtic support, nobody is interested. It is very boring and out of date. Not even the Record could sell an extra paper if they made a story out of it.
          Nothing “published” by fakes so far places Rangers in any danger whatsoever. It will never appear as “evidence” anywhere – unless Whyte steals some more money from elsewhere to fund his case against Green & Co.
          And again, that just isn’t going to come about.
          Still, you carry on. It must give you SOME comfort. But you know, a habit becomes harder to break the longer you’re addicted to it.

      • cam

        Jail them all!,,,sweetie wifing sleekit little creeps.
        The Arty C weirdo,,,,whaddya think Willy?,,,one freak with a grudge or a cabal?
        The business side needed to be tempered with the legal side,so that suggests to my red necked brain that there were at least two weirdo’s involved.
        Karma and hopefully the polis will out them.
        Why take the site down when the humiliating verdict stoated right aff the freaks napper?

        • willy wonka

          Cam – as always “a cabal”. We know who two of them are. The rest will have their photos up on the wall soon. Just a matter of time.

  11. mick

    looks good and pacey

    • JimBhoy

      Always good to see a few new faces in especially young up and coming talent that will see us get a good return when we decide to sell them on…

      My son wants Balde printed on his new Celtic top, last time he got a new player’s name on his shirt it was Suarez, he jinxed that one…. 🙂

      • mick

        @jim there is cracking new vids up on the celticfc official site also the dublin decider gets mention great footage

        • JimBhoy

          @Mick Cheers mate will have a look in between cooking my hell-fire Chili and watching the wife cut the grass 🙂

  12. mick

    for the attention of willy wonka who was bealing the stmirren game was of for Celtic to do Dublin its a sell out already lol pmsl hail hail

    • willy wonka

      Oh, THAT game ! Aye, there are a helluva lot of Liverpool fans in Eire. And Man Utd fans.
      Certainly far more than ever give a thought to ra hoops.
      Lol.

  13. JohnBhoy

    Don’t you just love the Celtic. A beautiful unbroken history of love and camaraderie and song and the Big Cup and Seville and Hampden in the sun and honest untainted championship after honest untainted championship and paying taxes and creditors and giving to charity and big huddles and the Holy Goalie and walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart and you’ll never walk alone, you’ll never walk alone…

    • willy wonka

      John – plenty of “love” right enough.
      The fact that some of it was definitely unwanted might be a wee cloud on the sunny sky though.

      • Monti

        FFS GIVE IT A REST!!!!!!!

      • Paul

        cam and co,sevco,newco any oldnew co
        Looking forward to the new season kicking in, Dublin what a place and what a welcome plenty of drink no hassle pure party. The new players will be made welcome in the Dublin trip and get a wee taste of the real reason why Celtic is so enriched with it’s unbroken history and a wee feel for the roots of the club. Then it’s onto the new adventures in SPLSFL were they will get a wee taste for trophies and that winning feeling,Wonder if they will even think about what it was like to play in an OF game, naw they wont cause that is well and truly gone you cannot bring back the past so it is onto the present and a bit of CL SC LC LChampionship and a good bit of friendly banter as the GB sing their songs and give them a right good Celtic Family night, like the one that had Barcelona superstars gobsmacked.I wonder how the Sevco will fair in far places like the cowshed, the barn, the dung heap, piggery and hen sheds of those big bad Div 2 teams. Make sure the Sat Nav is updated nothing worse than been lost in the snow in the middle of a field with no sign posts for miles and this usually the situation at 4.00 o’clock. Best to keep in a crowd maybe a wee huddle and no leaving early thats how you end up lost.And remember to tone down those tunes see what happened to the bloke in this blog.

        • cam

          Dublin?,,,keep it.
          What Celtic are all about?,,,Sutton and Hooper learned the refs excuse quickly enough.
          OF games,,,,stuff them,full of hatred.
          CL,,,papped out of Europe rapid style.
          Ranger’s domestic tour,,,,don’t worry about us, we don’t care about you.
          Offensive songs,,,,see Celtic.

          Ok ,,,,next for shaving!

  14. Niall Walker

    @Ray

    ” The Insolvency Act would recognise debt to employees (football players/ staff) and revenue authorities (HMRC) as preferred creditors’ status; both of which would qualify as a common footballing debt.”

    Creditor Order of Priority:

    ” The first creditor that will receive payment is the secured creditors (fixed charge). Secured creditors have the money that they are owed secured against an asset of the company, usually the asset that they have sold the company.”

    ” Once these are paid, preferential creditors would be next on the agenda to be paid. Preferential creditors are usually internal and consist of things such as staff wages and holiday pay claims. Before September 2003, the Inland Revenue (now HMRC) were also classed as a Preferential Creditor, they are now considered an Unsecured Creditor.”

    ” Next to receive payment would by any creditors who hold a floating charge. These occur when a debt is secured against general rather than specific assets of the company. A common example would be an overdraft where the bank has a floating charge over assets such as debtors, stock or office furniture. Floating charge assets are assets that the company would use day to day thus making it vary in value over time.”

    ” Unsecured creditors are the last external creditors to be paid. These are usually unpaid trade creditors along with any unpaid taxes (PAYE, VAT etc.) and any unsecured loans.”

    Can we agree that HMRC are not a preferential creditor, yes or no ?

    • willy wonka

      Wasting your time Niall. The same question will appear at least once tonight and probably a couple of times tomorrow.
      La la la la la la – I’m no listening.

  15. dan

    Just back after an enjoyable short trek through Europe ( on exes I might add, which made it even more agreeable). After business, talk invariably turned to matters football and I was much heartened to note the unconfined joy with which all and sundry greeted the trials and tribulations of Sevco. Everyone I spoke to had their own particular horror story to tell about the ‘hordes’ who came to their country/ city/town to support Oldco on those occasions when tax dodging, financial doping, or ‘honest mistakes’ by our own dear refereeing ‘fraternity’ gave them dubious passage into Europe.

    And with what relief was the news greeted that ‘ra peepul’ would never again darken the stadia of Europe on account of their club being dead——-I did try and explain the ‘same club theory’ but inevitably gave up amid gales of incredulous laughter.

    I note from some of the above posts that my European chums may be being a bit harsh on Oldco, as they died without any noticeable debts whatsoever—apparently.

    Oh, and all that stuff from Charlotte? Rubbish! So it is? I mean, so it really is? I mean—really really really is?

    Wait! What’s that noise I hear? Sounds like——whistling in the dark! So it does? So it really, really does!

  16. Fra

    Lalalalalala We’re not listening. Haha Not bad from the deluded who were told continuously that you were being shafted but because the author of that knowledge was a guy who was steeped in Irish tradition, you couldn’t bear (pardon the pun) to accept it. Phil, we salute you comrade.

    Our brother Phil gave the Klan ample warning and the fingers went in the ears and the vitriol poured from the mouths towards our brother. The guy was on the story while fat Jabba and the MSM slept and how do you thank him……there’s just no pleasing some people.

    Death comes to us all and in the case of the toxic club, it couldn’t have come any sooner…..HAIL HAIL BHOYS and GHIRLS from a sunny coast in Australia. I’m going surfing in the ocean to think of my beloved CELTIC. The world is a beautiful place this morning.

    We spread the word worldwide while supporters of the toxic club cower in shame and embarrassment telling us they don’t care. Oh yes they do but they have been shown up to be a rotten, bitter, twisted cheating bunch who can’t accept the ultimate sanction of death.

    Toodle Pip

    • willy wonka

      Plastic alert ! Take cover !
      Yes Phil told everybody. He even wrote a book about it. Shame he got the ending so catastrophically wrong though. Lol.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s