Every so often there is a burst of activity in the comments on the blog and some of the “old faithfuls” make their reappearances.
Now, unlike others I do not think this is a symptom of some great conspiracy hatched in Ibrox or in the Media House bunker. After all, I commend people like cam, carson, Willy Wonka, Steerpike and the rest as being of a commendably independent spirit.
Interestingly, in the past, these “busy days” have preceded some dramatic event at Ibrox …
WordPress, which is the platform for this blog, has a fun feature. It tells me the people who have made most comments in the last 1,000 on the site. (And as we are now over 85,000 comments since the blog started, these are statistics which reflect recent activity).
Bearing in mind that almost 1,000 of the comments include the word “obsessed” or “obsession”, it is rather ironic that the following list shows the top 7 commenters in the last 1,000.
(Puts on his best Alan “Fluff” Freeman voice)
At number 7, pop-pickers, and holding his position on the chart, we have the always quirky and often humorous cam!
At number 6, there is no getting rid of him, and still hanging round the top of the Hit Parade, although about to head back to Downton Abbey, give a big hand for carson!
Up to number 5, and still finding that Top Cat is getting the better of him, but no one else is, we have Officer Dibble!
Holding at number 4, we have that star of film and literature, created, like so many weird and wonderful characters by that master of the grotesque, Willy Wonka!
Down to number 3 is a man who wears his heart on his sleeve, no, not Gallagher & Lyle, but Monti!
A new entry at number 2, we have the enigmatic @gortchomhor
And at number 1, he has not had quite as long a gap between hits as Jackie Wilson did with Reet Petite, which was a Top 10 hit in 1957 and again in 1986, but back and songing the same song in his usual thorough style, we have …
It is very kind of cam, carson and Willy to spend as long pointing out the “obsession” of people writing and commenting about the football team they like.
And for Steerpike to comment from his non-aligned position!
By the way, I am delighted that these folk join the debate – after all, even a diet of finest succulent lamb dulls the palate if there is no bitter orange sauce for contrast!
And that leads me to a complaint which pops up every so often, and which I answer each time too.
George, who has been a commenter in the past, came back in full flow today, with a variety of posts in relation to the topic of free speech.
In doing so, he decided to link to my professional disciplinary matter from last year, which related to matters from three and four years back. I blog under my own name and I know that people can, if they want, make themselves aware of my mistakes from the past. I do not, despite George’s insinuations, block people who mention it – I block very few commenters at all!
But George also went on about me “censoring” him by blocking one of his comments.
I want to make a few points, and as it is my blog, I will do so.
1 George’s comment, which I reproduce below in the spirit of fairness, was not blocked by me. It is not in my “Trash” folder nor has it been put by WordPress into the Spam folder. There are 2 possibilities. Either the Akismet Spam filter was so sure it was spam that it dumped it automatically, or George managed not to submit his comment.
2 In answer to what he actually says, I do not think that it is ironic for a person whose favourite football team is Albion Rovers to write about Rangers. I have said repeatedly that it is the assorted legal implications and angles of the Ibrox mess/saga/redemption story which appeal to me. In what other news story have there been aspects of all of the following for comment and analysis?
- company law
- insolvency law
- trust law
- standard securities
- floating charges
- EGM requisitions
- damages actions
- employment law
- disciplinary tribunals
- judicial review
- tax law
- family law
- criminal law
- Data Protection
- the law of confidence
- debt recovery
- the “controlling mind” test
- diligence on the dependence of court actions
- share flotations
- mortgage repossessions
- gratuitous alienations (just for you Clarkeng!)
- attachment of motor vehicles
- the nature of legal entities
- and so on and so on …
- Does George think that only Rangers supporters should be allowed to discuss Rangers?
3 I enjoy blogging and spend some time, but not an inordinate amount, on it. If I was a person who followed his football team around the country then I would spend more time doing that, I suspect, than I do writing the blog. Do I castigate people who will go from Glasgow to Berwick to watch a football game? No. Why should I?
4 As anyone can see, my blog started long after the particular chapter of my professional life where things were going wrong ended. So I can re-assure George that I was not distracted from work by blogging, and I can re-assure my clients and my employer that that does not happen now either!
5 And George, I do not really get the point about the SNP as being a comparison with my saying that I did not write the “free speech” post. I did not write it. So having a go at me about it seemed rather odd.
6 I have made clear on this blog that the “whataboutery” which brings issues of alleged assault and abuse up as some form of counter-balance to the alleged failings of Rangers is an insult to victims of those crimes. I am not averse to having a guest post about these matters, as long as it is an interesting and legal piece – very few people who go on about Penn State University, for example, and its alleged parallels to Celtic, have offered anything when I have suggested they write a piece, and the couple who did (and I mean no offence by this) contributed pieces which would not have been out of place in the darkest corners of some Rangers fan websites!
7 I don’t get the “Always the offended, never the offender” line.
So, to conclude, I welcome opinions from all sides. All I ask is that people respect each other (which I know does not always happen).
It takes a lot for me to block someone, and it definitely takes more than saying something I disagree with! A friend of mine who also reads the blog asked me why I did not stop people spouting rubbish on the blog – I explained that the best way to let people gauge the value of someone’s comments was to allow them to say their piece, and if they do talk nonsense, then condemn themselves from their own keyboards!
And, as I started this piece saying that I did not believe that this seemingly concerted “pro-Rangers” or “anti-blog” flurry of comments was anything sinister or organised, I can happily tell readers (this means you Willy) that if there is a planned campaign to heighten anti-Rangers feeling right now, I did not get the memo!
Posted by Paul McConville
The Post by George Which He Claimed I “Censored” (Even Though I Didn’t)
Thanks MCFC and good advice to everyone. Just as well i had cc’d – a lesson learned from trying to debate with C4 and Tomo. Here’s my reply to Paul that hasn’t made it to the debate yet.
Ironic Paul that you think my posts are ironic. Bit like its ironic that an Albion Rovers fan should devote so much of his time commenting on Rangers rather than his own club. As for ‘back to work’ I believe there’s a few miners that wished you had been working on their cases instead of ‘blogging’. As for the article on your website not being in your name. Do us all a favour – bit like the SNP claiming they will defend Scotland when they can’t even defend their e-mail account. Now if you want to remove this comment (I’ve cc’d it by the way) when the headline starts ‘it’s free speech’ then go ahead. Bit like the Stasi really. Always the offended, never the offender. Bit like that guy in Australia who taught at Fort Augustus. I notice you haven’t devoted a blog to that story. Perhaps Monti, Maggie and Mark wouldn’t approve?