Scottish Media's Hokey Cokey

Anyone else puzzled why SMSM enjoys a weird Hokey Cokey? You put an old club in, you pull a new club out...

Whether you believe Rangers are a new club or not, or whether you care or not, one glaring anomaly stares out at you from this story. How come the Scottish mainstream media uniformly reported in June 2012 that Rangers had died and yet, at some point since, have reversed that view without saying why?

I don’t actually care if Rangers are considered old or new, although the Zombie banter can be hilarious in the right hands. My main interest is in media. This football story is an illustrative microcosm of the challenges media face in reporting controversial stories honestly. What I find fascinating in this story is the media coverage of the insolvency event, the non-coverage prior to the event and the Orwellian exercise of trying to rewrite the front pages since the event.

Now, we all “get” that the papers needed to sell papers. That’s their job. Reporting “the death of the club” and the “end of 140 years of history” sold papers (see references at end of this blog). People wanted to know what was going on, especially the then long-suffering Rangers fans. Pity the papers hadn’t comprehensively reported what was going in the run up to "the ending of 140 years of history".

That was left to Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, the freelance journalist, whose blog achieved literally millions of verified hits as even people who didn’t support his views wanted to find out what was going on. After all, Phil's had been the sole voice predicting correctly what was likely to happen to (oldco) Rangers. What was effectively a near news black-out on the pertinent points of the developing story back in 2011 created a news vacuum which “Internet Bampots” filled. "Internet Bampots" of course was the derisory term coined by mainstream media types, pure affronted that less worthy souls than themselves attempted to tell a story they had decided not to tell. Perhaps that was due to fear of becoming the shot messenger bearing unwelcome news.

That fear turned out to be well-founded as Mac Giolla Bhain received, upon serialisation in The Sun of his book, Downfall - How Rangers FC Self-destructed, vile hate mail, toxic abuse, disgraceful smears - and death threats. Mac Giolla Bhain has been criticised by some fellow NUJ members within the Scottish media for not congratulating them on their efforts to firstly ignore the story and then subsequently rewrite it as if it hadnt happened at all. It’s been claimed a reason some in SMSM took issue with Mac Giolla Bhain was that he “did down” fellow union members. Such a touching allusion to union solidarity seems odd however when one considered how few of these “done down” types came to the aid of fellow NUJ member Mac Giolla Bhain when he was receiving death threats.

Radio phone-ins are notoriously reluctant to even air the notion that Rangers are a new club. Along with the many elements of press they seem determined to omit any reference to the consequences of liquidation of Oldco Rangers. Sure, we understand the fear of losing listeners and readers. But that can’t be the full explanation because debate and controversy sell papers, don’t they? Perhaps they don’t want to tarnish the product they are reporting. Only they can say what the reason for avoiding the debate is, and why the old newspaper front pages from June 2012 are being unwritten.

In summary, I think it would be healthier if the debate (whether Rangers are a new club or not – there are decent arguments on both sides) was allowed to be had, rather than the mere mention of it resulting in hysteria and censorship, two elements which rarely illiminate anything.

References

The Telegraph

“Rangers in crisis: the final whistle sounds on Rangers’ 140 years of history”  12/06/12

The Herald

Air of unreality as 140 years of history is formally ended in less than nine minutes”  15/06/12

The Daily Record

“Rangers FC as we know them are dead. It’s all over. They are about to shut down for ever…They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended… No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.” 13/06/12

New stock of Downfall - How Rangers FC Self Destructed paperback being delivered to Amazon on Tuesday coming after existing stock sold out again.

The Hippy Hippy Shake-Down

Few things gall me more than the kidnap of words, especially precious words. Words like, “humanitarian” “decency” “values” “moderate” “caring” “society” “stability” “peace” “democracy” “freedom” “The People” etc etc.

These are words treasured by real people, people who naturally feel an empathy for other human beings. This isn’t naive hippy time, by the way. It’s clear that the vast majority of human beings possess an empathetic capacity that would surprise the Psychopaths. 

My contention that this is the natural norm of the human condition, not the exception. The problem isn’t the 99%. It’s the 1%, who have either subordinated their empathy to ambition, or who simply never possessed it to begin with. Unfortunately, these are the people who run our “democracies” and look after our “freedom” with their “humanitarian” interventions that slaughter 1000s of innocent children all over the world.

Because it is our kidnapped words they have forced into their service, they commit these horrors in our name, or they supply the means, motive and opportunity for others to commit these crimes in our name. If we “The People” oppose them, we are called “extremists”.

I was called an “extreme pacifist” because I didn’t want my government to bomb innocent babies in Syria or to supply moral camouflage (and weaponry) to the likes of the killer regime in Saudi Arabia. When I raise the issue in comfortable company I’m told I’m “harping on” about it. And that’s the most horrifying element of this.

See, I expect our rulers, whose mission is to protect the wealth of the 1%, to behave as psychopaths. If you believe otherwise then I’m sorry, but you are naïve hippy, not me. Psychopaths behaving like psychopaths is not the true horror. The true horror is that they create conditions whereby resisting their never-ending theft and slaughter, even verbally, is met with anger, irritation or, even worse, a yawn. See, it’s only a short step from kidnapping our most sacred words, language and therefore our voice, to stealing our souls.

And if you are one of these people who wake up wishing people like me would just shut up and care more about a new washing machine, or house prices, or the reg of your car more than about the value of human life in The Yemen (for instance) then, if it’s not too late, check your back pocket just to check if your soul is still there. 

 Psychopathic Cultures and Toxic Empires by Will Black @WillBlackWriter

COLLUSION - Northern Ireland’s own Stay Behind Armies and Strategy of Tension

When “Collusion” between loyalist paramilitaries and the British Army was first suggested it was dismissed as republican propaganda or weird conspiracy material. Indeed, to ask serious questions about it meant that, if you were any kind of investigator or researcher, you could be easily ridiculed and therefore ignored if you had suggested Collusion was real. I remember trying to interest some journalists about this in the early 1990s when I was first in Northern Ireland with a view to doing a book on the subject. I was struck by how determined some were to dismiss the notion. One did suggest that his career would certainly be hurt if he was seen to be pursuing it even if he did believe it was real. As it happened he didn’t believe it was anything other than “rotten apples.” So the subject remained at best on the periphery of mainstream reporting, despite massing evidence that Collusion was not only taking place but had to have some kind of structure and official support.

Rotten Apples

Those involved in creating modern Collusion in Ireland were very careful to cover their tracks. They had experience of doing this all over the world over decades. So, they knew what they were doing. In fact, in this context, you can see that had Collusion NOT occurred in Ireland then that would make Ireland the exception when one looks at Malaya, Kenya, Aden and other theatres.

Should any part of the trail became exposed to public view due to some operational carelessness or some investigative journalist taking his/her role seriously, then the first “explanation” was the Rotten Apples theory, as in, “Yes, there was some co-operation between rogue RUC (or Army) personnel and we’re dealing with that.” Then the inevitable excuses for these rogues’ motivation would be trotted out. “You’ve got to understand that these people have seen their community hurt by terrorists. So, naturally, a rotten apple might let emotion guide him.”

The second line of defence was “Ok, perhaps it was more than one rotten apple in that area. Maybe a few of them there took the law into their own hands.” And there were other lines of defence grudgingly offered but usually only years after any potentially illuminating event. So context would be lost and we’d be left looking at, ostensibly, a series of unconnected events performed by a rogue and/or rogues. But the truth was much darker, much more obscene and, much more horrifying.  One day, it will be commonly accepted Collusion was official military policy.

Strategy Of Tension and Stay Behinds

It is worth reading books like Killing for Britain by UVF man John Black in the context of not only Ireland but also of Western Europe in the post-war Cold War.

Every major NATO country had a contingency plan catering for a successful Soviet Russian invasion of Western Europe, perfectly natural given there was a real fear in the minds of NATO planners that the Communist hordes were intent in invading the West. After all, Russian land forces were the largest on the contentment and had not long defeated the mighty German Wehrmacht. They were literally on the border of Western Europe. And, given the tension between the two power blocks of East and West, it was not inconceivable that one of these blocks might give into itchy trigger syndrome in panic, thus starting a war.

Should that result in Russia overrunning Western Europe, the NATO planners devised what became known as NATO Stay Behind Armies, roughly based on the concept so well executed by the French Resistance and elements of British special forces during the brief Nazi reign of Europe from 1940-45. 

In the ideological context of the time, NATO planners looked specifically for committed pro-state and anti-communist sorts to become operatives in their secret army. All this might still be secret were it not for the statement of Italian Prime Minister GiulioAndreotti revealing it to the Chamber of Deputies on October 24, 1990 which sparked a flurry of investigations which detailed the Italian Operation Gladio.  However, Gulf War One soon blew the story off the world’s media headlines - that and NATO covering the tracks.

This meant NATO getting into bed effectively with many right wing elements, including pro-Nazis who now saw NATO as the best guarantor against the feared Russian invasion. As well as many Nazi scientists and intelligence agents going on to form the nucleus of NATOs nuclear and European intelligence agencies, many more became senior figures in the formation of the Stay Behind Armies whose role would be to become the anti-Soviet resistance in any territories the Soviet armies conquered.

However, in an effort to forestall either a Soviet advance, or the development of sympathy for communism in Western Europe, the NATO Stay Behind Armies often played covert roles in subverting democratic votes in especially Italy and France as well as other countries where Communists had strong democratic mandates.

One key method of reducing public sympathy for Leftist politics was to discredit Communist or socialist groups. This could be by humiliating some leaders with scandals and such like. But a much more horrific modes operandi was to perpetrate no warning terrorist outrages resulting in civilian deaths and then blaming these on leftist groups. The NATO countries intelligence agencies could either tap into the genuine terrorist instincts of some leftist groups, or it could infiltrate these groups and guide them to terrorist actions, or they could simply use their own Stay Behind operatives to place bombs in public places and massacre civilians. This would create fear and panic in the populace and result in people insisting their government implement extreme security measures, thus allowing even easier monitoring of the leftist groups that “threatened” to undermine the state in the hope of gaining power themselves or of instigating a Soviet invasion. The placing of these bombs, which killed scores of civilians in Italy, created a climate of near paralysis. This was a result of the implemented Strategy Of Tension.

Consider then what preparations would the NATO planners of the Stay Behind Armies in continental Europe have made in Northern Ireland – unless you think it too far-fetched for these meticulous chaps to have noticed that Northern Ireland was a potential trouble spot and a security Achilles Heel with its anti-state insurgency potential.

Going by the form established in Germany, Italy, Belgium and others, the NATO planners would have ensured the selection of appropriately pro-state types in Northern Ireland and who could be relied upon to co-operate with covert state forces in order to protect the state and challenge any insurgency.

Killing For Britain by John Black in this context does not seem quite so far-fetched as some would have liked to suggest when it was first published in 2008, especially in the light of the subsequent finding of Mike Norman, thought to be the pivotal “Mike” in John Black’s account of his time as a UVF member working with British Military Intelligence in Belfast in the early 1970s.

Several British Military and Intelligence contacts, who kindly assisted me when writing The Hunger Strikes and when researching other books including SAS Warlord and John Black’s Killing For Britain, emphasised the importance of the Cold War in their thinking regarding “Ulster”. One of these contacts was a senior Military Intelligence operative with strong SIS links. He insisted the Cold War aspect is always underrated as a key factor in British State thinking on Northern Ireland. 

But, when one considers this, and considers NATO Stay Behind Armies - and further considers the whole concept of Collusion between pro-state terrorists and state forces in Northern Ireland and Western Europe - then one can clearly see an important pattern. When studied in this context, it would be remarkable if Northern Ireland was the one potential conflict zone in Western Europe where such collusion was NOT a reality. In fact, any contention that Collusion in Northern Ireland did not take place or that it was not sanctioned at official levels is simply unrealistic. 

"A legalised Death Squad" - Killing For Britain, 2016 edition

Another of our authors, an ex-SAS soldier who was in the MRF in Belfast in 1972, actually said to me, "we were a legalised Death Squad." 

(Killing For Britain 2016 edition is published 12th March on Kindle for the first time)

Killing For Britain 2016 on Kindle

John Black was a former UVF member from Belfast. I interviewed him dozens of times over a two-year period in preparation for publishing Killing For Britain, his own account of his time in Belfast in the early 1970s.  

Black lived quite close to me around 2006 and I got to know him very well. It was hard to believe that the frail man approaching old age could have been involved in an organisation that committed terrible crimes in early 1970s Belfast. The UVF were by no means alone in committing terrible crimes against civilians. The IRA, the UDA and others were responsible for the deaths of civilians as they prosecuted their wars. The responsibility for the creation of these wars will provide debate from now to eternity. But that civilians, as always, bore the brunt is indisputable. And, what is becoming clear as research into Collusion (between British Army and Loyalist killers) continues decades later, is that the British Army not only killed civilians "by accident" but actually planned the killing of civilians as a tactic. This is why, according to John Black, the army's secretive MRF (Military Reaction Force) used loyalists to target Catholics in Belfast in the 1970s.  

The idea was to put pressure on Nationalist communities to stop them either supporting or tolerating the IRA. The logic was that if Nationalist suffered enough bereavement and grief as a community then they'd insist the IRA ceasefire. This is not a uniquely barbarous method of madness. This is a common military tactic when armies seek advantage over enemies, not that this fact is ever used in recruitment ads. War is brutal so no one should be surprised by its brutality.

This was the context for British Miltary Intelligence to approach loyalist paramilitaries like John Black and convince them that they were aiding the British army by carrying out "dirty actions" in the dirty war. As I said on George Galloway's Press TV show some years ago, if it wasn’t John Black, it would have been John Brown, or Fred Brown, or whoever. The actions would have been performed regardless because they were planned.

Collusion was a dirty word when the first edition of Killing For Britain was published in 2008. In my own research I came across former members of the MRF from that period. One of them described the unit he worked in then as a "legalised death squad".

There was a Panorama documentary on the Military Reaction Force a few years later and one of the participants was one of the MRF members I'd discussed the period with. So, there is no doubt that the unit existed and targeted various people for extra judicial executions. It’s hard to write off these claims off as "Republican Propaganda" when terms like "legalised Death Squad" was the description of the MRF by one of its own members.

British Military intelligence utilised the MRF and other strands of activity relating to putting pressure on the IRA and Nationalist communities. It is our contention that the term MRF was used by John Black's military contact ("Mike") as a handy tag to pin on their activities, like a brand name almost for much of the "secret squirrel" activities which ran concurrent to the MRF activities in the Panorama documentary.

John Black's claims benefited from our research finding the "Mike" character in the book - at least, that is our certain belief. See the extract from the book below this blogpost.

Killing for Britain is a harrowing account of murderous times and none of the participants, Loyalists, Republicans, or the British Army, can claim to have clean hands.  The author was traumatised by the events, although not as traumatised as innocent victims of the period, a fact he readily agreed with. While the author will always be a committed loyalist, his hope was that the awful events and attitudes highlighted in the book would make anyone thinking of following in his footsteps think again. 

Extract from 2016 edition of Killing For Britain, by John Black

"Initially, the author's claim having been taken out in uniform by the British Army on Bloody Sunday was considered doubtful but, on consideration, it had to be either the truth, or a downright lie – there was no in-between regarding this claim. The author would therefore benefit from receiving some corroboration. As well as the author himself, the other main personality in the book is the author's British army contact, "Mike". Post-publication of the first edition of this book we made attempts to locate the now infamous "Mike".

IN SEARCH OF "MIKE"

British army sources had, upon reading the manuscript, suggested a likely profile of “Mike”: a senior NCO, late 20s, early 30s, certainly with specialist weapons training, and probable Special Forces involvement.

The author had described “Mike” as being around 6ft with "a decent head of hair", capable of affecting an “Ulster” accent, one from "out in the country somewhere”, rather than from Belfast. “Mike”, according to the author, had claimed to be Irish originally and had moved to England as a child and grown up in the North East of England before joining the army there. British army sources further suggested that “Mike” was unlikely to have been officially connected to the MRF but was in fact more likely to have been involved in some concurrent operation, one that felt it convenient to use the tag, or catch all “brand name”, of the MRF. Sources further suggested that “Mike” may have been what they called a “secret squirrel”. (Admittedly, other sources though, who were in the MRF in Belfast at that time, deny ever knowing a character such as “Mike”. However, they didn’t have an overview of all Military Intelligence options in play at the time). The shots allegedly fired by "Mike" in the book are clearly those of an uncommonly skilled marksman.

The book was published before we had found “Mike” but with having a firm belief he existed. We believed most of the other claims (apart from the Bloody Sunday ones) could be stood up. Concerns regarding the sheer scale of the amount of so-called OOBs (Out Of Bounds orders) were put to British army sources who responded that if “Mike” existed, there was nothing to stop him claiming to the author that OOBs were in place when none actually were. It was suggested that “Mike’s” job may have been to convince people like the author that their activities were approved of, and supported by, official security forces. In other words, “normal”. This is not unusual where a colonial power has co-opted and encouraged the murderous impulses of “reliable natives”, many of whom develop feelings of doubt, then guilt and then become “unreliable”. Reinforcing their belief that they were in some way, however abstract, part of the army’s efforts stemmed guilt and doubt. It also reinforced their belief that they deserved to be the dominant community. The author’s claims of an OOB being in place are based simply on “Mike” telling him they were. Sources suggested the term OOB might have been a corruption of various terms. It was also suggested that “Mike” could have called them anything he wanted. As far as the author was concerned “Mike” was the army. It must also be said that some sources indulged in something like a campaign of misinformation when responding to our queries.

In the text the author describes being briefed at Palace Barracks. He mistakenly IDs an officer’s rank, misreading his “pips”. The author’s lack of knowledge of the ranking system or emblems does not mean his claims are not real. It just means he never studied rank.

The author claims the Palace Barracks compound was walled by a “wooden fence”. It was in fact walled mainly by corrugated iron fencing. Post publication of the first edition we put this to him. He replied that his memory struggled here but he was certain that it was at least some combination of both. Subsequently, we were shown photos from the period by an army source, who was there at the time, showing the wall to be indeed corrugated iron but with some wooden supports at points.

Post publication we believe we found “Mike”.

Warrant Officer Michael Norman was a sniper of exceptionally high skill to the point that he ended up a sniper instructor at Warminster. He had served in Ireland during the period covered in the book. He was 62 years old in 2005, making him late 20s early 30s in the early 1970s. From North East England, he’d spent time in Ireland as a child where his family had land in Roscommon (according to his ex-wife). He’d joined the Coldstream Guards, as other Geordies had done. Michael Norman was an anonymous witness called by the Bloody Sunday Enquiry, surely only because he was there on that fateful day.

Michael Norman had in his possession photographs relating to the Springhill Massacre when he was found shot dead in his car not far from a police station in Hounslow in April 2005, around 6-8 months after he’d met the author in Ayr, Scotland, in an effort to dissuade him from writing his book. Detectives initially suspected foul play (a so-called IRA “revenge squad” being suspected). Scotland Yard took over the investigation, reportedly “due to the sensitive nature” of Mike Norman’s “work in Ireland”. His death was eventually ruled suicide.

Initial reports stated that a 9mm pistol was found in the car when the body was discovered. However, a police source told us in 2010 that the weapon was actually a shotgun which had been registered to Mike Norman and that he’d shot himself in the stomach. The same source stated that there had been NO photos of the Springhill Massacre in the car at the time, contrary to initial reports on the public record. The source added that Norman had become a quite unstable in later life. It seemed this source might be trying to discredit Norman.

Questions

1. Why would a renowned weapons expert decide to maximise his suffering by shooting himself in the stomach, and with a shotgun at that?

2. Was Mike driving to a police station?  If so, why do that with a shotgun, or, for that matter, a 9mm?

3. Why was the weapon changed from a 9mm to a shotgun in different reports? It’s not like they are similar.

4. Why was the presence of photographs from the Springhill Massacre initially claimed at all if they had not been there. As one police source said, “it’s a strange thing to report in the first place if it wasn’t true.”

5. Why was Michael Norman called to give evidence to the Bloody Sunday Enquiry?"

ENDS

      

We've Got To Talk About Billy

Silence speaks volumes, often saying something unintended to the wrong people, encouraging them to think that silence is tacit approval.

The near silence of the traditional Scottish MSM on bigotry seems to empower many (on all sides) who seem slow to tackle it. This undermines the argument that silence helps defuse the issue. In fact, events intermittently remind us that the issue stays on a slow burner, exploding every now and again, such as last month, when the casualties included two journalists, Graham Spiers (who wrote an article condemning bigotry in songs sung at Ibrox) and Angela Haggerty (who tweeted solidarity for Spiers), whose services The Herald dispensed with after complaints from The Rangers.  The Herald's legal advice was that a contention made by Spiers could not be defended with any guarantee of success in court. 

Graham Spiers alleged that someone at the club had suggested The Billy Boys was a great song (the words to the version sung by Rangers fans being originally sung in the 1930s in praise of Glaswegian razor-gangster Billy Fullerton, a member of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and indeed the founding member of the Ku Klux Klan in Scotland).

The melody of this song was originally the tune to Marching Through Georgia, a marching song celebrating the 1860s American Union Army’s marching through and liberating Confederate Georgia, freeing slaves.

The catchy tune was popularised and adopted by others all around the globe as far as Japan, India and the UK. It was adopted then its lyrics adapted by followers of Billy Fullerton’s razor gang in Glasgow in the 1930s. It was they who introduced the song at the football ground they attended, Ibrox, home of Glasgow Rangers. The song subsequently spread through the crowds there over time until it became one of the main Rangers anthems, despite it containing the line, “up to our knees in Fenian blood”.

Because many in the Rangers tradition have an affinity with Protestant King William of Orange who, in their view, saved Ireland (and indeed Britain) from Catholic King James 11 in 1690, the song The Billy Boys is presumed by many to be a celebration not of a 1930s sectarian, fascist-supporting razor gang, but rather the monarch of 1690s Britain and Ireland. So, it is argued by many Rangers fans, that The Billy Boys is not about fascists or the Ku Klux Klan member at all, but about King Billy.

(NB. The Ku Klux Klan past of Billy Fullerton is where The Klan references on social media come from. The term Klan is arguably fairly used when it is describing anyone with an expressed sympathy of Ku Klux Klan member Billy Fullerton through song. That he was a member of the KKK is a matter of historical record. Klan is never a term that should apply to all Rangers fans by any stretch. Indeed, journalist Angela Haggerty has made this good point many, many times, as has Phil Mac Giolla Bhain. It’s ironic too that many complaining about the use of the term Klan are disturbingly comfortable using the term Bheast, often using it to describe all Celtic fans, somewhat diluting the validity of their moral outrage felt at the use of Klan).

Many Rangers fans among my family and closest friends genuinely had no idea about the Billy Fullerton connection of The Billy Boys anthem. But that wasn’t their trouble with the song. Regardless of which Billy it is about, it still contains lines of sectarian hatred. Hence, it is deemed legally offensive.  Hence, it is not sung approvingly by anyone with genuine disgust of sectarian hatred.

The tune to this song is undeniably rousing and almost tailor made for being sung by a crowd. If anyone had been praising this element of the song then that would simply be a matter of musical taste and uncontroversial. Indeed, a Rangers friend wondered perhaps if someone originally praising it might subsequently deny doing so for fear their appreciation of the tune being mistakenly taken as sympathy with the lyrical content in the adaptation sung by a subsection of (i.e. not all) Rangers fans.

The Rangers is not the only club with a problem with a subsection of its fans. All clubs have to employ the most effective deterrent with offensive or sectarian songs – and that’s self-policing. This subsection however is vocal, as anyone who’s heard The Billy Boys being sung at Ibrox can attest. One can imagine the looks a fan next to a large crowd of other offensively-singing fans might get if he/she suggested politely that they desist from the singing when it is in full flow.  Yet it is people willing to make that suggestion to their fellow fans that need the support of the club, and fans groups. That same principle (of clubs & fans groups supporting those willing to self-police) applies throughout football to all clubs.

Unhelpfully, a number of Rangers fans who one might imagine would be keen to take a lead in confronting anything that reflects badly on their club, including sectarian singing, appear to be in denial that The Billy Boys is being sung after years of it being more or less absent from Ibrox (due to some good under-the-radar work by the old Rangers). Some disingenuously even contended that the words Fenian Blood were replaced by the term EBTs (a reference to the side deals the old Rangers paid some players with), that last denial embarrassing even some Rangers fans who were there. If the term EBTs was being used, it appeared to have been drowned out those not sticking to that script.

Some fans have put a lot of energy and activity recently into chasing down folks considered to have spoken out unfairly in their view about the issue of sectarian singing, and thereby damaging their club. One can only hope then that an equal amount of energy and activity is going into calling out the actual singing of sectarian songs and the attitudes behind it which are as damaging as anything.   

Why An Opinion Is Not A Lie

Graham Spiers will never need me to defend him. He's proven very capable in that regard. Nevertheless, its important for fans of all clubs or even anyone who cares about freedom of speech, to voice support. 

Spiers cannot be regarded as any kind of extremist, or "bampot". Clearly a writer of uncommon ability, with an able analytical mind, and obvious human decency, he’s been measure and reason personified when people of my temperament felt a more robust approach was necessary on many issues.

So, the witch-hunt against him recently has been disturbing to witness. I’m not certain Mr Spiers and I would agree on very much, except that we’d agree that any suggestion that he is a liar is frankly bizarre. In my opinion, there is no possibility the man lied.

It’s almost an Orwellian scenario, where someone forms an opinion based on conversations had, and then having that opinion called a lie. Expressing an opinion is not the same thing as telling a lie. The avalanche of angst directed against Spiers for having the temerity to express an opinion, widely shared, that Rangers could do more to confront the bigotry witnessed by all, for instance, at the recent Rangers-Hibs game, was undeserved. Its worth noting the track record of accuracy or otherwise among many of his current detractors.

The Rangers have made considerable progress over the last 15 years or so (testified by the fact that The Billy Boys was not heard at Ibrox anywhere near as was previously the case. A lot of Rangers work against bigotry is under the radar. Sometimes that is the best way to get results, as one Rangers fan said to me this week.

But sometimes the need for such work and the challenges involved should be highlighted. That’s in effect all Mr Spiers was doing. The campaign against him seems to be led by people who claim to represent ALL Rangers fans. They may represent the most vocal. But that’s not necessarily the same thing.

The charge of ‘liar’ put to Spiers also pertains to his assertion that a director of The Rangers believed The Billy Boys was a great song. There are many interpretations that could be made here. For instance, the director in question may have defended this by saying the tune was catchy but the words are vile. It may be that in the storm that followed these comments someone feared that the nuance may have been lost and it was therefore easier to deny ever saying that. There’s more possibility of that in my mind than Spiers ever telling a lie.

Why has Mr Spiers not named the director, his source for the story? I do not know any journalist who would betray a source. Whatever short term gain might be made would be to the detriment of the journalist’s reputation and ability to gain and maintain the confidence of any sources in the future. I think that would be pretty obvious.

There’s been much support for Mr Spiers. But there should have been a whole lot more. The silence has been deafening from some quarters. Now, there is such a valid democratic tool as People Power. That’s valid. Pressure can be put on public figures and organisations by financial pressure etc. But like all tools, it needs wielded carefully, sensitively and only with good reason. Without these elements, People Power is reduced to a mob. The fear of the mob is prevalent among working journalists, and with good reason. When an opinion and the desire to protect a source becomes reasons to be hounded out of making a living then we are indeed in a Joe McCarthy wet dream.

One wonders if half of the the powerful energy against anyone pointing out the need to tackle bigotry had been directed to … err … tackling bigotry, then this whole issue might be a thing of the past. 

Corbyn Versus the Cosy Elites

Watching or reading UK media you'd have thought the Cabinet re-shuffle was an evil device invented by Jeremy Corbyn. You'd also be forgiven for thinking Corbyn was the only party leader who wanted a cabinet of people willing to accept cabinet responsibility. There was nothing like this level of biased and even factually incorrect reporting when Cameron was reshuffling his cabinets.

There is nothing new about internal opponents of a party leader using resignations in order to maximise the damage to said leader. It is how politics work.

However, unique elements here include the hand in glove coalition of Labour malcontents and the media. Sure the media wants stories. And internal divisions in any party create stories. Nothing sinister about that. But what is concerning is that the media, in is hunger for stories, is helping to create these stories rather than just reporting them. It helps them that the Labour Party members refusing to accept the decision of the Labour membership to elect Corbyn and the media share a naturally anti-Corbyn agenda.

For instance many senior personnel in the UK media establishment, such as Head of BBC News, James Harding, BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg and Andrew Neil etc. have distinctly conservative with a small ‘c’ attitudes. This is typical of any establishment. It’s how it maintains its, well, establishment. It’s a state of mind it shares with the Labour Party establishment – and of course the Conservative Party establishment. This creates both a conscious and unconscious “acceptable range” of debate. Alex Salmond referenced this when he called the BBC “unconsciously biased”. Anyone presenting ideas outside this ever-narrowing acceptable range of debate is, sadly, unlikely to be treated with the same respect and objectivity reserved for those within the cosy framework of “approved” debate.

We have the clearly staged drip drip drip of Labour Party resignations, planned by the remnants of the defeated and nationally discredited Iraq war-apologists of the Labour right, slavishly reported by their establishment pals in the media. Doubtless, those who are resigning have been promised career uplifts in any new regime. Doubtless, those not offered anything are pinning their colours to the anti-Corbyn party in the hope the new regime, if the coup is successful, will reward them. Nothing new here. Politics since the Stone Age has worked like this. But please, don’t pretend that this is free, fair or democratic. Call it what it is. Small-minded self-interested political pawns being bribed to gnaw away at the wood of the ship in the hope that when it sinks they can scuttle onto the new ship.

Prepare for disingenuous statements from these people, saying that they like Jeremy but they don’t believe he is electable. Really? There’s really no market in the current British political landscape for an anti-austerity anti-war, anti-trident political message? Facts confront this. The SNP electorally annihilated the post-Blair/Brown Labour Party because Labour shilly-shallied about austerity, was pro-Trident, and was seen to be allied with the Tories at every turn.

Then, hundreds of 1000s of political voters, alienated by Labour being pulled to the right, returned to the party both during and after the election of Corbyn. Are we in Labour really to be expected to only vote for Murdoch-approvable candidates? Is that what passes for “electorally viable”?

The establishment, which includes many on the Labour right, seem to want a Soviet-style system, whereby you can stand as a candidate as long as you don’t want to change the system. The so-called centre of the Tory party, the Lib Dems and the right of the Labour party seem to have created a Soviet-style consensus. Consensus is good. It’s desirable. But the consensus of the people at large is at variance of the consensus of the elite. Always has been and always will be. The ‘threat’ of Corbyn is that he’s actually representing the people’s consensus, not lobby groups, not vested interests and not media barons.

There is an obvious desire among the electorate for an end to the massive fraud of austerity, the waste of Trident, the butchering of civilians in oil-related wars and the immunity of those who caused the financial collapse. That desire should be being tapped into by the people’s natural representatives, The Labour Party. By trying to win Murdoch et al, Labour lost Scotland, a whole country! Did that make electoral sense? Well, it did if your goal was to wreck the Labour Party. Sadly there are those unrepentant Blairites who would not mourn the death of Labour because if they can’t control it, the party has no value to them.

So you have the media banding around terms designed to label anyone out with this cosiness as “extremist”, or otherwise unattractive terms like “Hard Left”. Words like “Hard” jar with most people when compared to something comforting like “moderate” or “centrist” or “soft”. So, who decrees which label gets applied? Why, the self-proclaimed “centrists” of course.

We recently had the Kafkaesque scenario where “Moderates” were all for bombing a country without regard to the danger this put innocent women and children in, and the “extremists” were those opposing the inevitable massacres of civilians, no matter how “smart” our bombs were.  In fact, not only were those opposed to war described as “extreme”, “cowards”, “terrorist sympathisers”, but also described by the Orwellian-sounding phrase, “toxic pacifists”.

If the UK media and establishment had any intention of living up to its proclaimed ideals of objectivity, reasoned debate, respect for opposing views, respect for democratic will of an organisation’s members, then ours would be a genuinely democratic country. However, the desire of both the political and media establishments (who are intrinsically linked by friendships, family, educational background, familiarity and proximity) is to discredit anyone wanting actual change, anyone who might threaten their cosiness. And we are left wondering what a genuinely free, fair and democratic society might look like.