Sportsound Watch

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

This clearly has little to do with Sportsound so apologies to all for the diversion, but this needs pursued.

According to Wiki - and please correct me if it's wrong - the Orange Order is "a strict Protestant society (which) does not accept non-Protestants as members unless they convert and adhere to the principles of Orangeism, nor does it accept Protestants married to Catholics".

Are you seriously saying that the choice of strip is a nod to this, which is in turn, somehow acceptable?

To come back to Bennett's initial question, it sounds like the very definition of "promoting sectarianism".

Having single-religion organisations is absolutely fine.  Not something I'd want to be part of personally which is why I have no involvement in churches or 'loyal orders' but, equally, I don't regard kirks, chapels, synagogues or mosques as sectarian.  I'm sure you don't either.

[The_Kincardine]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Legitimate points of view for a football club to actively promote, especially given connections to the OO which you see here as explicit?  

It isn't to my personal taste - although Her Maj does look dashing in her sash in my avatar - and I'm not convinced that promoting us as being a bit Orangey is especially desirable.  However, it does appeal to a fair few of our fan base and it is pretty innocuous.

There is the added bonus that it riles posters like you

[Dons_1988]

And herein lies the issue, I think it's undeniable that both Celtic and Rangers' historical links to Irish politics and religion is at the core of their identities. This is absolutely what attracts the idiots to these clubs.  So the question is, is it wrong for them to promote these historical backgrounds? If they didn't, the idiots would disappear you'd imagine.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

And herein lies the issue, I think it's undeniable that both Celtic and Rangers' historical links to Irish politics and religion is at the core of their identities. This is absolutely what attracts the idiots to these clubs.  So the question is, is it wrong for them to promote these historical backgrounds? If they didn't, the idiots would disappear you'd imagine.

One correction - it's British politics wrt Rangers.

My own take is that 'promoting Orangey stuff' is more of a hindrance than a help and that it puts more people off than it attracts.  I'd happily support* Rangers even if The Sash was never sung again at Ibrox and we never wore an Orange top. 

However, the general tenor of the forum is that Tories/Rangers fans/Orangemen/Unionists eat babies for breakfast so I do get a touch defensive in the face of this absurdity.

*pay £5.99 to watch games on Rangers TV.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

One correction - it's British politics wrt Rangers.

My own take is that 'promoting Orangey stuff' is more of a hindrance than a help and that it puts more people off than it attracts.  I'd happily support* Rangers even if The Sash was never sung again at Ibrox and we never wore an Orange top. 

However, the general tenor of the forum is that Tories/Rangers fans/Orangemen/Unionists eat babies for breakfast so I do get a touch defensive in the face of this absurdity.

*pay £5.99 to watch games on Rangers TV.

Fair enough but the issues are centred around the island of Ireland I think it's fair to say?

Would you argue though that if Rangers insist on being a club representative of these politics that they will forever have a sectarian element to the support?

[Monkey Tennis]

48 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Having single-religion organisations is absolutely fine.  Not something I'd want to be part of personally which is why I have no involvement in churches or 'loyal orders' but, equally, I don't regard kirks, chapels, synagogues or mosques as sectarian.  I'm sure you don't either.

No, I get your point.

Having a football club explicitly endorse such a perspective is however sectarian, and I'd see this as entirely undesirable and very divisive.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Fair enough but the issues are centred around the island of Ireland I think it's fair to say?

Would you argue though that if Rangers insist on being a club representative of these politics that they will forever have a sectarian element to the support?

A proportion of Rangers fans have felt strongly about the 1688 Revolution for a long time - and that centres around Westminster.  Recently, a fair few Rangers fans feel strongly about the attempt to partition Britain - and that again is a Westminster issue.  So making it about 'the island of Ireland' is rather dismissive.

Being a Loyalist/Unionist does not make you sectarian but, sadly, does attract a sectarian element.  I think the club does need to be much clearer on what is acceptable and what is not.

[Monkey Tennis]

42 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

It isn't to my personal taste - although Her Maj does look dashing in her sash in my avatar - and I'm not convinced that promoting us as being a bit Orangey is especially desirable.  However, it does appeal to a fair few of our fan base and it is pretty innocuous.

There is the added bonus that it riles posters like you

Aye ok.

Do you really see it as innocuous though?  I genuinely see that as a difficult circle to square for you.

[BoydiesBelly]

1 hour ago, Wasperoonie said:

5 hours ago, Green Day said:

I caught the first 20 minutes and had to switch off - not because if was at Tynecastle, there were good points being made by Hearts fans, Locke etc - but because of these two bams above.
They were discussing the stuff at Easter Road - they were both at the match where a bottle was launched at Sinclair - and Miller "couldnt believe that Hibs dont have CCTV good enough to catch this person" and Bonner " I couldnt believe Hibs didnt have CCTV in the area".
If they were moderately professional, moderately interested in their subject, they would know that Hibs (and Hearts) existing CCTV is very good, on a par with anything at any sports ground in Scotland, including Hampden - but it is not perfect.
What both clubs are installing now at huge expense will put them leaps and bounds ahead of anything anyone else has..................but of course, that doesnt feed their uninformed narrative.
Now I wouldnt mind listening to them if they were vaguely informed, but not to even know the subject they are pontificating on is unforgiveable.
And whoever authorises their contracts needs a coconut on the heid.

Near the end of this programme, while discussing who the panel thought would go through from the 2 semis...Pat Bonner actually asked this of host David Currie..."Do these games go to extra time and penalties David?"

David Currie also was suggesting that maybe Inverness' name was on the trophy this year because "Y'know I've looked at the run Inverness had and it's been pretty tough. Edinburgh City a draw but they're doing well, East Kilbride, Ross County in a derby Y'know..."

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I think the club does need to be much clearer on what is acceptable and what is not.

I kinda think you do too.

Your individual stance has less impact than that of the club, but it provides some insight as to the dilemma the club apparently faces.

[Dons_1988]

7 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

A proportion of Rangers fans have felt strongly about the 1688 Revolution for a long time - and that centres around Westminster.  Recently, a fair few Rangers fans feel strongly about the attempt to partition Britain - and that again is a Westminster issue.  So making it about 'the island of Ireland' is rather dismissive.

Being a Loyalist/Unionist does not make you sectarian but, sadly, does attract a sectarian element.  I think the club does need to be much clearer on what is acceptable and what is not.

OK fair enough I'll leave Ireland out of it.

But I agree with you, holding a political view does not necessarily make you a bigot, but Rangers as a club promoting those views will attract the very worst of the Rangers support, no?

[The_Kincardine]

12 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

OK fair enough I'll leave Ireland out of it.

But I agree with you, holding a political view does not necessarily make you a bigot, but Rangers as a club promoting those views will attract the very worst of the Rangers support, no?

Yes

[Scary Bear]

Have these lads escaped from that segregated Celtic/Rangers section?

Please make them stop.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Scary Bear

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Yes

OK, so my question is, is it possible to marry Rangers and the political associations and eliminate sectarianism at the same time?

[BoydiesBelly]

6 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Have these lads escaped from that segregated Celtic/Rangers section?

Please make them stop.

Segregation?! We will not stop until this is once again a united Ireland Kingdom Forum.

[The_Kincardine]

7 hours ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

It always amazes me* that Rangers/Sevco fans will happily defend things like the Orange strips because they have fans in the Orange Order and support Unionism, even claiming that the Orange Order aren't a sectarian organisation but then in the same breath say that folk singing "sad O***** B*****d" in a song is sectarian and as bad as the "sad F***** B*****d" version. So is Orange OK or not OK?

 

*not amazed

 

Being Orange is ok.  Being called an *********** is not ok.  Why is it so difficult to understand that there's a world of difference between an innocuous observation that someone is an Orangeman and the abusive statement that someone is an ***********?

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Being Orange is ok.  Being called an *********** is not ok.  Why is it so difficult to understand that there's a world of difference between an innocuous observation that someone is an Orangeman and the abusive statement that someone is an ***********?

I agree.

Substitute the word 'black' for 'orange' and the distinction is very clear.

 

I'm still amazed however that having identified the association you see with the orange kit, you're quite so comfortable with it.  

[Dons_1988]

20 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Being Orange is ok.  Being called an *********** is not ok.  Why is it so difficult to understand that there's a world of difference between an innocuous observation that someone is an Orangeman and the abusive statement that someone is an ***********?

There's an issue here though, it's not just the fact some Rangers fans are protestant or orangemen is it? Personally, I couldn't give a f**k what religion or political viewpoint someone has when they turn up to a football match. It is Rangers fans that impose it upon me when I encounter them.

I attended the cup game at Pittodrie a few weeks ago and I was serenaded about Bobby Sands, the UVF and god save the queen before the game had even started.

You might say that's not representative of the Rangers support but it's consistent with any experience I've had of them at Pittodrie, Ibrox or Hampden. So it's not just that they are Orangemen, but that they aggressively want to let everyone know they are. Whether you like it or not their songs are aggressive to those who oppose that view. This is why it isn't just a case of abusing them because they are protestant or whatever.

 

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I agree.

Substitute the word 'black' for 'orange' and the distinction is very clear.

 

I'm still amazed however that having identified the association you see with the orange kit, you're quite so comfortable with it.  

"I wouldn't choose it but I'm not upset by it".  The tawdry 5 stars on our badge upsets me more.

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

There's an issue here though, it's not just the fact some Rangers fans are protestant or orangemen is it? Personally, I couldn't give a f**k what religion or political viewpoint someone has when they turn up to a football match. It is Rangers fans that impose it upon me when I encounter them.

I attended the cup game at Pittodrie a few weeks ago and I was serenaded about Bobby Sands, the UVF and god save the queen before the game had even started.

You might say that's not representative of the Rangers support but it's consistent with any experience I've had of them at Pittodrie, Ibrox or Hampden. So it's not just that they are Orangemen, but that they aggressively want to let everyone know they are. Whether you like it or not their songs are aggressive to those who oppose that view. This is why it isn't just a case of abusing them because they are protestant or whatever.

 

I think it's entirely representative of our support and, of course, the songs are aggressive.  Some rightly aggressive and a few are just bigoted cant.

I can't imagine any group of supporters wanting their songbook to be reduced to Kumbaya and Give Peace a Chance (without add-ons).  The trick is finding the balance between what is acceptable and not acceptable aggression and you citing our National Anthem doesn't help.

[Dons_1988]

I think it's entirely representative of our support and, of course, the songs are aggressive.  Some rightly aggressive and a few are just bigoted cant.
I can't imagine any group of supporters wanting their songbook to be reduced to Kumbaya and Give Peace a Chance (without add-ons).  The trick is finding the balance between what is acceptable and not acceptable aggression and you citing our National Anthem doesn't help.

Except you and I know full well why god save the queen is sung by your support.