Friday 30 December 2011
Monday 19 December 2011
italian reports on udine game
Embraced, beer in hand and Biancoverde scarf around his neck. They are many, over 400 in mid-afternoon, the fans of Glasgow Celtic in the marquee set up to welcome them to the streets May Day. You say enchanted by the city, its streets, squares. I am surprised at the reception, because - they say - "the premises and shops are all very kind." And then add in chorus: "We are a peaceful supporters, people appreciate us for it."
They have not had many problems to settle. The climate has helped them. A drizzle, at 17 o'clock, made them feel at home. Meanwhile, the party continues. There you climb on the tables and improvises a dance, there are those who listen to the music of Scottish and Irish notes shot up in the morning by the powerful speakers placed in the square. Grant interviews to local TV and newspapers. "I feel like a star," says William, who adds: "I am stunned by all this attention." Moreover, this year, is the first time that the city is invaded by such a large number of supporters. The Udine festival in the square and watch the smiles. Also rejoices to sport city councilor, Kristian Franzil, which states: "The decision to organize a meeting place for the fans has been a winner. You have fun, enjoy our specialties, and it seems to me that the bars and restaurants in the square have worked very hard. Out of many locals, I saw the tail and in addition we have helped the reception committee of the Celtic Club Udine, setting up the tent with the contribution of Arci Cas'Aupa. " And again: "In addition, some fans slept in this city since the previous evening, filling hotels and pubs also the day before the game. This time - Franzil concludes - we're satisfied. " Suddenly, under the tent, it materializes the Mayor Furio Honsell. And 'happy that a successful party, but to fans of Celtic confesses: "When I was in your beautiful city, my favorite team was the Rangers." Silence. But at least the Celtic fans have appreciated the courage and honesty of the first citizen.
In the square there is also Paul, president of the local association dedicated to Celtic, saying: "I am happy to have met all these people in my country. The Celtic is a big family. " Meanwhile, John Thompson, a supporter, says: "The frico is gorgeous and your city is very welcoming." Of the same opinion William McGrath, who bites into a sandwich with sausage, and confirms, "Udine I loved it, but are a little 'nervous about the game. It would have been better if they had passed both teams, I'd hate to do wrong to Udinese fans. " William and John hug, look at the clock and say, "He's about to strike the fateful hour, go to the stadium." They end up more than half a sip beer and singing, they move away, under the typically British rain.
http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/cronaca/2011/12/16/news/scozzesi-in-festa-stregati-da-udine-1.2861161
Easier than learning to say 'please', even more immediate than saying "please" or translated "beer", so like the word "beer", and yet so different (especially if maybe you have also already a bit drunk '.. ..) So after only one night in cities all Scottish Celtic team followers knew yesterday already say "send". Maybe a little stretching 'the "i" at the end, but using the greeting from Friuli and above all always at the right time. And so the lady cross the bar mid-morning is greeted with a warm "mandiii!", Accompanied maybe even a hug. It also happens at lunchtime, in front of Udine entering and leaving the premises for a drink, them, the Scots, they smile, they mention a few and then greet the choir: "mandiii." And who had the kilt seemed to say it better, as demonstrated by the dozen Scots at lunchtime has "invaded" a bar-restaurant on Via Savorgnana. Frico highly popular and sausage, but it was above the square to collect the greatest number of consents.
Very Catholic in Protestant Scotland and Great Britain, including a choir and the other Celtic supporters were ready yesterday to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of one of the many churches in the center. Also ready to respond with a smile and a teasing, however, who greeted them reiterating "Fuarce Udin". Funny, open the hand, but most drinkers, more than one case they felt remember the name of Massimo Donati, a player from Friuli in Glasgow a few years ago he played two seasons in the ranks at Celtic. And down then back-slapping and big handshakes. Can last only mistake was to appoint Rino Gattuso (also football player for years in Glasgow, but the other team), or just confuse the Rangers with Celtic. Error almost "excommunication", as the first is the team linked to the Protestant community and the second is that of Catholics.
http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/sport/2011/12/16/news/in-verde-e-in-kilt-imparano-subito-il-mandi-1.2860396
Udine. Udinese have been drawn with PAOK in sixteenths with the Europa League. This is the draw in Nyon. Round Feb. 16 at the Friuli, back on Feb. 23 in Greece. Upon successful completion of the round, Udinese would be the winner of the second round match between AZ Alkmaar and Anderlecht, went away with the second leg at home on March 8 and March 15.
Guidolin. It is clear in commenting Francesco Guidolin the draw in Nyon from the urn, which was released as an opponent for Udinese sixteenths-finals of the Champions League PAOK Thessaloniki. "Going to play in Greece is always tricky - said the coach of Castelfranco Veneto on the pages of the website Friuli club - because we know that we will find a warm, full and very difficult. But having "caught" the Arsenal in the preliminary round of Europe and Champions League-like calm and we can not complain because we have avoided having to face another big European football. Paok within our reach? I do not know. I'll tell you after you have faced in the field. "
Christmas. Comes the Christmas bomber's comment: "Seeing who could deal with, to be honest: after all, we were lucky - the captain says Juventus - the 'Udinese have already played once against the Greeks, and even if, at the time, I was not even part of the family black and white I know that our fans take a lot to this challenge. It will not be easy, because the Toumba Thessaloniki find a hellish environment, sportingly speaking, but we will do our best to go through and give all the Friulians a special night. "
The match with Celtic. Last night while Udinese drew 1-1 with Celtic and has reached the other Italian team Lazio, in sixteenths-finals of the Champions League. Gone in disadvantage with the goal of Hooper, the Friuli region have managed to balance the fate of the challenge at the end of the first half through captain Christmas.
What is at stake tonight was very important it was already understood the reading of formations: three games in six days, in fact, they did not desist from sending the coach Guidolin field the best 11, with Christmas - announced on the eve on the bench - his regular place among the owners.
The leaders of our league has shown good football, trying to overturn the glorious Celtic hierarchy who wanted to instill a certain fear to Juventus, but after a first failed attempt with a lob Christmas just came out, have risen in precisely the Scottish throne thanks to the speed of their forwards: Hooper has tried for the first time the 23 'right-angling a low shot too, but five minutes later did not fail when he used the rebound of a referral Handanovic Ekstrand and quick bagged a few inches from the door.
Be emphasized that at that time was ten Udinese's injury Badu Juventus where the staff had not yet solved by inserting David Beckham on the pitch, which occurred immediately after the Scottish advantage. To put things in place in full recovery, however, thought there was the usual Christmas, a short good at exploiting rejected by a defender and the goalkeeper Forster folded hands with a right-footed volley.
In the second 45 minutes of play Udinese upped the pace in an attempt to loot full, but has found its way on an excellent Forster on several occasions has said no to men Guidolin: between 18 'and 20 'English goalkeeper saved the first shot from distance on Christmas, then header of Isla, then stop suddenly Asamoah. At 27 ', then, striking the pole was struck by the same Asamoah who has failed to close the big target.
Flip and other wood in front, three minutes later Cha Du-Ri was to hit the left upright with a conclusion which is then rebound effect of Handanovic, but the Slovenian was quick to turn around and save a ball that was on the line slipping slowly into the goal. At 36 ', in the battle of the best in the field, was twice denied Forster for the second personal joy at Christmas: rejecting a conclusion first and then turning right header on an assist by Armero.
Breaking emotions of a challenge that has completed the party for Italian teams: AC Milan, Inter Milan and Naples in the Champions League, Udinese and Lazio in the Champions League. Nothing more could be asked.
Have already landed in Udine in the top 50 of the Celtic fans, the team will have to see if the evening with Udinese. Friuli stadium, in fact, the challenge will be held valid for the sixth day of the "Group I" of the group stage of the Europa League. At 21.05 there will be the kick-off, while the gates are already open from 19.30.
For all white-green supporters the Municipality of Udine, together with the two clubs and supporters in collaboration with the police, organized a special big garden which, therefore, will be closed to traffic. A welcome from fans about friendship: May Day in the square were set up a marquee and some kiosks that can distribute food and drinks, in dell'Infopoint. The City will support the event ensuring a reduction of 99% of the rent public land for employment, the use of the electrical property of the City, the location of chemical toilets, cleaning the area, the positioning of the marquee and bins for waste collection. The area in which the initiative will be cordoned off and closed to the transit stop and from 6 to 10 today, tomorrow.
Yesterday morning, in the offices of the police headquarters in Viale Venezia was held the meeting that traditionally precedes every match in the football program in the capital of Friuli. It was attended by the Vicar of quaestor Campagnolo Savior, the chief of staff John Belmonte, Vice quaestor added Augustine D'Antin who will be responsible for public order, the delegate Udinese football Andrea Poncho and representatives of police, municipal police , the financial police and Trenitalia (for arrivals at the station). As was already anticipated a few days ago, it's a match that from the point of view of safety, is not considered at risk, because there are no known rivalry between the fans and the Juventus Biancoverde. The deployment of forces, however, is significant: at the Friuli stadium, in fact, there are over 150 men of the police and about 260 stewards. And the spectators, in whole, should be about ten thousand.
The stakes are high, the two teams will play the move to sixteenths Europe league. "For us it will be an important game - said the Juventus captain Antonio Di Natale - a final. We will play at most to go through. The spectators there will be close to Udinese and support to go ahead of the competition. "
They have not had many problems to settle. The climate has helped them. A drizzle, at 17 o'clock, made them feel at home. Meanwhile, the party continues. There you climb on the tables and improvises a dance, there are those who listen to the music of Scottish and Irish notes shot up in the morning by the powerful speakers placed in the square. Grant interviews to local TV and newspapers. "I feel like a star," says William, who adds: "I am stunned by all this attention." Moreover, this year, is the first time that the city is invaded by such a large number of supporters. The Udine festival in the square and watch the smiles. Also rejoices to sport city councilor, Kristian Franzil, which states: "The decision to organize a meeting place for the fans has been a winner. You have fun, enjoy our specialties, and it seems to me that the bars and restaurants in the square have worked very hard. Out of many locals, I saw the tail and in addition we have helped the reception committee of the Celtic Club Udine, setting up the tent with the contribution of Arci Cas'Aupa. " And again: "In addition, some fans slept in this city since the previous evening, filling hotels and pubs also the day before the game. This time - Franzil concludes - we're satisfied. " Suddenly, under the tent, it materializes the Mayor Furio Honsell. And 'happy that a successful party, but to fans of Celtic confesses: "When I was in your beautiful city, my favorite team was the Rangers." Silence. But at least the Celtic fans have appreciated the courage and honesty of the first citizen.
In the square there is also Paul, president of the local association dedicated to Celtic, saying: "I am happy to have met all these people in my country. The Celtic is a big family. " Meanwhile, John Thompson, a supporter, says: "The frico is gorgeous and your city is very welcoming." Of the same opinion William McGrath, who bites into a sandwich with sausage, and confirms, "Udine I loved it, but are a little 'nervous about the game. It would have been better if they had passed both teams, I'd hate to do wrong to Udinese fans. " William and John hug, look at the clock and say, "He's about to strike the fateful hour, go to the stadium." They end up more than half a sip beer and singing, they move away, under the typically British rain.
http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/cronaca/2011/12/16/news/scozzesi-in-festa-stregati-da-udine-1.2861161
Easier than learning to say 'please', even more immediate than saying "please" or translated "beer", so like the word "beer", and yet so different (especially if maybe you have also already a bit drunk '.. ..) So after only one night in cities all Scottish Celtic team followers knew yesterday already say "send". Maybe a little stretching 'the "i" at the end, but using the greeting from Friuli and above all always at the right time. And so the lady cross the bar mid-morning is greeted with a warm "mandiii!", Accompanied maybe even a hug. It also happens at lunchtime, in front of Udine entering and leaving the premises for a drink, them, the Scots, they smile, they mention a few and then greet the choir: "mandiii." And who had the kilt seemed to say it better, as demonstrated by the dozen Scots at lunchtime has "invaded" a bar-restaurant on Via Savorgnana. Frico highly popular and sausage, but it was above the square to collect the greatest number of consents.
Very Catholic in Protestant Scotland and Great Britain, including a choir and the other Celtic supporters were ready yesterday to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of one of the many churches in the center. Also ready to respond with a smile and a teasing, however, who greeted them reiterating "Fuarce Udin". Funny, open the hand, but most drinkers, more than one case they felt remember the name of Massimo Donati, a player from Friuli in Glasgow a few years ago he played two seasons in the ranks at Celtic. And down then back-slapping and big handshakes. Can last only mistake was to appoint Rino Gattuso (also football player for years in Glasgow, but the other team), or just confuse the Rangers with Celtic. Error almost "excommunication", as the first is the team linked to the Protestant community and the second is that of Catholics.
http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/sport/2011/12/16/news/in-verde-e-in-kilt-imparano-subito-il-mandi-1.2860396
Udine. Udinese have been drawn with PAOK in sixteenths with the Europa League. This is the draw in Nyon. Round Feb. 16 at the Friuli, back on Feb. 23 in Greece. Upon successful completion of the round, Udinese would be the winner of the second round match between AZ Alkmaar and Anderlecht, went away with the second leg at home on March 8 and March 15.
Guidolin. It is clear in commenting Francesco Guidolin the draw in Nyon from the urn, which was released as an opponent for Udinese sixteenths-finals of the Champions League PAOK Thessaloniki. "Going to play in Greece is always tricky - said the coach of Castelfranco Veneto on the pages of the website Friuli club - because we know that we will find a warm, full and very difficult. But having "caught" the Arsenal in the preliminary round of Europe and Champions League-like calm and we can not complain because we have avoided having to face another big European football. Paok within our reach? I do not know. I'll tell you after you have faced in the field. "
Christmas. Comes the Christmas bomber's comment: "Seeing who could deal with, to be honest: after all, we were lucky - the captain says Juventus - the 'Udinese have already played once against the Greeks, and even if, at the time, I was not even part of the family black and white I know that our fans take a lot to this challenge. It will not be easy, because the Toumba Thessaloniki find a hellish environment, sportingly speaking, but we will do our best to go through and give all the Friulians a special night. "
The match with Celtic. Last night while Udinese drew 1-1 with Celtic and has reached the other Italian team Lazio, in sixteenths-finals of the Champions League. Gone in disadvantage with the goal of Hooper, the Friuli region have managed to balance the fate of the challenge at the end of the first half through captain Christmas.
What is at stake tonight was very important it was already understood the reading of formations: three games in six days, in fact, they did not desist from sending the coach Guidolin field the best 11, with Christmas - announced on the eve on the bench - his regular place among the owners.
The leaders of our league has shown good football, trying to overturn the glorious Celtic hierarchy who wanted to instill a certain fear to Juventus, but after a first failed attempt with a lob Christmas just came out, have risen in precisely the Scottish throne thanks to the speed of their forwards: Hooper has tried for the first time the 23 'right-angling a low shot too, but five minutes later did not fail when he used the rebound of a referral Handanovic Ekstrand and quick bagged a few inches from the door.
Be emphasized that at that time was ten Udinese's injury Badu Juventus where the staff had not yet solved by inserting David Beckham on the pitch, which occurred immediately after the Scottish advantage. To put things in place in full recovery, however, thought there was the usual Christmas, a short good at exploiting rejected by a defender and the goalkeeper Forster folded hands with a right-footed volley.
In the second 45 minutes of play Udinese upped the pace in an attempt to loot full, but has found its way on an excellent Forster on several occasions has said no to men Guidolin: between 18 'and 20 'English goalkeeper saved the first shot from distance on Christmas, then header of Isla, then stop suddenly Asamoah. At 27 ', then, striking the pole was struck by the same Asamoah who has failed to close the big target.
Flip and other wood in front, three minutes later Cha Du-Ri was to hit the left upright with a conclusion which is then rebound effect of Handanovic, but the Slovenian was quick to turn around and save a ball that was on the line slipping slowly into the goal. At 36 ', in the battle of the best in the field, was twice denied Forster for the second personal joy at Christmas: rejecting a conclusion first and then turning right header on an assist by Armero.
Breaking emotions of a challenge that has completed the party for Italian teams: AC Milan, Inter Milan and Naples in the Champions League, Udinese and Lazio in the Champions League. Nothing more could be asked.
Have already landed in Udine in the top 50 of the Celtic fans, the team will have to see if the evening with Udinese. Friuli stadium, in fact, the challenge will be held valid for the sixth day of the "Group I" of the group stage of the Europa League. At 21.05 there will be the kick-off, while the gates are already open from 19.30.
For all white-green supporters the Municipality of Udine, together with the two clubs and supporters in collaboration with the police, organized a special big garden which, therefore, will be closed to traffic. A welcome from fans about friendship: May Day in the square were set up a marquee and some kiosks that can distribute food and drinks, in dell'Infopoint. The City will support the event ensuring a reduction of 99% of the rent public land for employment, the use of the electrical property of the City, the location of chemical toilets, cleaning the area, the positioning of the marquee and bins for waste collection. The area in which the initiative will be cordoned off and closed to the transit stop and from 6 to 10 today, tomorrow.
Yesterday morning, in the offices of the police headquarters in Viale Venezia was held the meeting that traditionally precedes every match in the football program in the capital of Friuli. It was attended by the Vicar of quaestor Campagnolo Savior, the chief of staff John Belmonte, Vice quaestor added Augustine D'Antin who will be responsible for public order, the delegate Udinese football Andrea Poncho and representatives of police, municipal police , the financial police and Trenitalia (for arrivals at the station). As was already anticipated a few days ago, it's a match that from the point of view of safety, is not considered at risk, because there are no known rivalry between the fans and the Juventus Biancoverde. The deployment of forces, however, is significant: at the Friuli stadium, in fact, there are over 150 men of the police and about 260 stewards. And the spectators, in whole, should be about ten thousand.
The stakes are high, the two teams will play the move to sixteenths Europe league. "For us it will be an important game - said the Juventus captain Antonio Di Natale - a final. We will play at most to go through. The spectators there will be close to Udinese and support to go ahead of the competition. "
Wednesday 16 November 2011
Offensive Songs - a wee survey
Paul McBride QC and others in favour of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill have said that any reasonable person would know whether they were breaking the law. I believe that reasonable people hold widely varying opinions on what will (and should) be illegal under the law when this is brought in. So I conducted some facebook polls about a number of songs. The surveys had a very small samples and a disproportionate number of Celtic fans voting, but in some ways I think that makes the results more interesting.
The results suggest that reasonable people do have significantly different expectations of what will be illegal. Indeed, people with law and journalism degrees think that the Irish national anthem will be illegal. I'll explain what I think the correct answers to be in a moment.
According to the draft guidelines, national anthems are okay. So, although it is about the violent struggle for Irish freedom (technically it predates the IRA), this song should be in the clear ("in the absence of any other aggravating, threatening or offensive behaviour"). Otherwise it could be banned under several of the other guidelines, notably:
The results suggest that reasonable people do have significantly different expectations of what will be illegal. Indeed, people with law and journalism degrees think that the Irish national anthem will be illegal. I'll explain what I think the correct answers to be in a moment.
| Song | Will and Should | Will and Shouldn't | Won't and Should | Won't and Shouldn't |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Soldier's Song | 2 | 1 | 21 | |
| The Billy Boys | 6 | 2 | ||
| In Your Glasgow Slums | 1 | 6 | ||
| The Boys of the Old Brigade | 2 | 4 | 1 | |
| The Sash | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| There'll Be No Huns In Europe | 1 | 4 |
There is only consensus on whether two of the songs (In Your Glasgow Slums and The Billy Boys) listed will be banned. In every other case reasonable people differ on what will be illegal, nevermind what should be illegal.
I will try to say which ones I think will be illegal based on the draft guidelines provided by the government. The police, government clubs and football authorities have all refused to name individual songs that will, or won't, be illegal or banned or unwelcome. The one exception to this is the following atypical reassurance reported to The Herald, so I have used that too.
The Sash
This (along with Build My Gallows) is explicitly okay with the police according to the Herald as of the 28th of July this year, and half of respondents got this wrong. I didn't ask about the latter song as it is less well known, but it includes the lines "they say this day that I must hang cause I fought the IRA". These are the only songs with absolute clarity (unless the police have changed their mind).
According to the draft guidelines, national anthems are okay. So, although it is about the violent struggle for Irish freedom (technically it predates the IRA), this song should be in the clear ("in the absence of any other aggravating, threatening or offensive behaviour"). Otherwise it could be banned under several of the other guidelines, notably:
- Songs/lyrics in support of terrorist organisations
- Songs/lyrics which glorifies or celebrates events involving the loss of life or serious injury.
Notably, Flower Of Scotland would certainly fall foul of the second of those (I daresay Edward II would say it fell foul of the first too), and it isn't officially a national anthem.
The Boys Of The Old Brigade
Almost everyone thought this would be banned, and I agree that it probably will, although in sentiment it seems identical to the The Soldier's Song or, on the other side, Build My Gallows, or indeed Flower of Scotland. That Flower of Scotland is not equally frowned upon is either because there has been a greater passage of time, or because it is more "Scottish".
The Billy Boys
Everyone thought this would be banned, and I agree; indeed it already is.
No Huns In Europe
This one really depends on whether you believe the word "hun" to be offensive. Almost all the respondents didn't, but Paul McBride has said that it is, so I see there being significant confusion over this one too. I'd be surprised if there many arrests over this, but it is really down to the discretion of the police officer, and their views will probably differ just as much as football fans. It is the amount of subjectivity involved in this bill that poses the greatest threat to freedom of speech, I think.
In Your Glasgow Slums
No-one thought this would be banned. In many ways I find this the most interesting one. If I had asked about "Nakamura ate my dog" I imagine I would have gotten a very different answer. Saying Nakamura eats dogs based on (inaccurate) racial stereotypes, is, of course, racist and offensive. It strikes me as odd that saying Glaswegians eat rats because of poverty is not considered offensive. There is no clause in the bill about socio-economic status. However, I think the real reason this isn't considered subject to the law is because it's not associated with a "foreign" culture. Celtic are seen as being "Irish" and Rangers "British" whereas the fans singing this fit comfortably into a cuddly "Scottish" vision to many.
In case it's not clear, I'm not advocating singing any of these songs. I'm advocating the freedom of speech, and any laws that are introduced being clear and predictable in their application, and that the law should apply to everyone, not just football fans. It should be about protecting people from violence, or the threat of violence, and not about "offence". If taken strictly, this law would outlaw a host of Beatles songs, "Free Nelson Mandela", and "Waterloo" by Abba (I'm not clear on Waterloo Sunset). Obviously, it won't applied in that way, but individual police officers will be able to apply well or badly according to their own prejudices.
Wednesday 3 August 2011
A previous complaint
A couple of years ago I complained to the BBC after Jim Traynor defended The Famine Song, saying that those "pious" people who complained about it were dangerous. Their response (below) takes a markedly different approach to the recent response on the "sectarian singing" at the cup final, and didn't come close to apologising for backing the worst song in Scottish football. In both cases they seem to be at odds with the Scottish courts which have explicitly found the Famine Song to be racist, and The Boys of the Old Brigade NOT to be sectarian.
I have said elsewhere that I don't think The Boys of the Old Brigade should be sung, but doesn't mean that it's sectarian, and I object to words being redefined. I can believe that if someone one has led a sheltered life they could believe that "sectarian" means "anything to do with Irish politics, or the Old Firm". However, they would be wrong (regardless of what they believe the "common usage" to be - people commonly refer to Britain and England interchangably - the BBC don't think affects the constitutional position of Scotland, do they?).
Had Rob McLean said "Some Celtic supporters have been singing offensive songs" I would think it was disproportionate to mention it at that game and no other, but I couldn't have argued with the factual accuracy. Instead, they are clearly in the wrong. When you're wrong you should apologise, instead of this ridiculous wriggling.
A question - the BBC are now saying only The Boys Of The Old Brigade is sectarian, and not The Soldiers Song. They are both about the same thing, and both have add-ons. The fact they are treating the two differently, I suspect because one is the Irish national anthem and that would cause a diplomatic row. So the differentiation is for political reasons... or are they now sectarian?
Dear Mr McGuire
Thank you for your e-mail about 'Your Call With Jim Traynor'.
Firstly, I apologise for the delay in our reply. We know our correspondents
appreciate a quick response, and it is a matter of regret to us that you
have had to wait for so long on this occasion.
The producer of the programme has requested I forward the following
statement with regards to your complaint:
"Jim Traynor said that he did not know the song and that he was only
familiar with a small section of it, which he clearly said was offensive
and insensitive. The definition of what constitutes 'racist' is more often
than not a legal one. With hindsight, Jim should not have opined, on air,
as to the nature of the song, given his lack of knowledge of it.
What is unquestionable is that the song is offensive to the vast majority
of our audience. In the context of a fast-moving programme, please be
assured that Jim Traynor did not intend in any sense to offend any of his
listeners."
I hope this helps to clarify the situation however I appreciate that you
may continue to hold a different view.
I can assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log.
This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC
staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers
and other senior managers.
Thanks for taking the trouble to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
James Kelly
BBC Complaints
__________________
I have said elsewhere that I don't think The Boys of the Old Brigade should be sung, but doesn't mean that it's sectarian, and I object to words being redefined. I can believe that if someone one has led a sheltered life they could believe that "sectarian" means "anything to do with Irish politics, or the Old Firm". However, they would be wrong (regardless of what they believe the "common usage" to be - people commonly refer to Britain and England interchangably - the BBC don't think affects the constitutional position of Scotland, do they?).
Had Rob McLean said "Some Celtic supporters have been singing offensive songs" I would think it was disproportionate to mention it at that game and no other, but I couldn't have argued with the factual accuracy. Instead, they are clearly in the wrong. When you're wrong you should apologise, instead of this ridiculous wriggling.
A question - the BBC are now saying only The Boys Of The Old Brigade is sectarian, and not The Soldiers Song. They are both about the same thing, and both have add-ons. The fact they are treating the two differently, I suspect because one is the Irish national anthem and that would cause a diplomatic row. So the differentiation is for political reasons... or are they now sectarian?
Dear Mr McGuire
Thank you for your e-mail about 'Your Call With Jim Traynor'.
Firstly, I apologise for the delay in our reply. We know our correspondents
appreciate a quick response, and it is a matter of regret to us that you
have had to wait for so long on this occasion.
The producer of the programme has requested I forward the following
statement with regards to your complaint:
"Jim Traynor said that he did not know the song and that he was only
familiar with a small section of it, which he clearly said was offensive
and insensitive. The definition of what constitutes 'racist' is more often
than not a legal one. With hindsight, Jim should not have opined, on air,
as to the nature of the song, given his lack of knowledge of it.
What is unquestionable is that the song is offensive to the vast majority
of our audience. In the context of a fast-moving programme, please be
assured that Jim Traynor did not intend in any sense to offend any of his
listeners."
I hope this helps to clarify the situation however I appreciate that you
may continue to hold a different view.
I can assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log.
This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC
staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers
and other senior managers.
Thanks for taking the trouble to contact us with your concerns.
Regards
James Kelly
BBC Complaints
__________________
Tuesday 21 June 2011
Being a walloper is not a crime.
After years of ignoring The Famine Song, knees bathing in Fenian blood, etc, Scotland seems to have had a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction. The supposed Sectarianism bill outlaws rudeness, while Hearts have asked fans not to bring Red Hand of Ulster flags to their stadium (they can't be arrested for possession of a flag, but can for waving it, supposedly).
I am not a waver of flags, and I don't think football stadia should be used to glorify violence of any sort. I believe that the whole concept of national football teams rather dubious, which will be looked back on in future years as one of the last vestiges of racism, but that's a subject for another time. I'm also not a libertarian who believes people should be able to get away with as much as possible. Inciting racial hatred is rightly illegal, and clubs have a right to decide what can, and can't happen in the ground, within reason. What is acceptable in the street is not necessarily acceptable in a football stadium because of the increased chances of a riot breaking out.
However even I find these recent developments concerning. Hearts fans have a right to wave the Red Hand of Ulster if they want. I know that normally they are doing to annoy, but do they really intend to remove annoyance from the game? Why ban one national flag and not another? Do they intend to announce a similar prescription on the Irish tricolour just before Celtic's next visit? To my mind it sets a very dangerous precedent. As a nation we have a sensible think about what we tolerate, and what we don't. As the supposed target of this dastardly flag-waving, I am perfectly happy to tolerate a flag of a neighbouring country being waved in my general direction. Indeed football fans of all persuasions tolerate this all the time. Even with all the rancour at the last Hearts vs Celtic game, I'd be surprised if one Celtic fan approached any kind of official and said "gonnae stop them waving that flag?". What I don't think we, or anyone else, should have to tolerate is incitement to racial or sectarian hatred, death threats, or (and I think this is possibly the most dangerous of all) the defence of these actions by influential people in the media.
The sectarianism legislation (if it can even still be refered to as such) in theory outlaws anything that the police deem to be offensive, in a football stadium or various other places. This is something of a sea-change from a position of acquiescing with blantant widespread sectarian singing in recent years. The serious stuff was already illegal, so why make trivial things illegal too? I think the answer lies more in publicity stunts than anything else. The police aren't going to arrest everyone who annoys the opposition at a football match, but giving them the power to do so is almost certain to lead to abuse of that power, either through malice, or ignorance. Someone will be arrested for singing "God Save The Queen" or "The Soldiers' Song" and it will make matters worse, not better. A bill that was supposed to tackle hatred on the internet doesn't seem to understand the internet. Those vexatiously arrested will become martyrs on their various football forums. Meanwhile those on the forum will be wanting everyone who supports of plays for their opposition to be arrested under the legislation. The ludicrous Lennon-racism allegations of last reason will played out every week with "he blessed himself coming the park! lock him up!". Or "that guy's waving a Union Jack at Lennon, why's he not locked up??".
Being a walloper shouldn't be illegal. Like adultery, it should be seen as wrong, not illegal.
While all this bill is all for show, it distracts from two more important matters:
1. The thing that really stops fans from misbehaving is serious sanctions against their club. The docking of points, or closing of stands, change mass behaviour. Punishments for individual fans don't.
2. It doesn't address why people want to misbehave. By making almost all fans potentially guilty, it muddies the waters about the actual moral arguments to do with sectarianism and racism.
I fear that next season is actually going to be worse than this year because of this legislation
I am not a waver of flags, and I don't think football stadia should be used to glorify violence of any sort. I believe that the whole concept of national football teams rather dubious, which will be looked back on in future years as one of the last vestiges of racism, but that's a subject for another time. I'm also not a libertarian who believes people should be able to get away with as much as possible. Inciting racial hatred is rightly illegal, and clubs have a right to decide what can, and can't happen in the ground, within reason. What is acceptable in the street is not necessarily acceptable in a football stadium because of the increased chances of a riot breaking out.
However even I find these recent developments concerning. Hearts fans have a right to wave the Red Hand of Ulster if they want. I know that normally they are doing to annoy, but do they really intend to remove annoyance from the game? Why ban one national flag and not another? Do they intend to announce a similar prescription on the Irish tricolour just before Celtic's next visit? To my mind it sets a very dangerous precedent. As a nation we have a sensible think about what we tolerate, and what we don't. As the supposed target of this dastardly flag-waving, I am perfectly happy to tolerate a flag of a neighbouring country being waved in my general direction. Indeed football fans of all persuasions tolerate this all the time. Even with all the rancour at the last Hearts vs Celtic game, I'd be surprised if one Celtic fan approached any kind of official and said "gonnae stop them waving that flag?". What I don't think we, or anyone else, should have to tolerate is incitement to racial or sectarian hatred, death threats, or (and I think this is possibly the most dangerous of all) the defence of these actions by influential people in the media.
The sectarianism legislation (if it can even still be refered to as such) in theory outlaws anything that the police deem to be offensive, in a football stadium or various other places. This is something of a sea-change from a position of acquiescing with blantant widespread sectarian singing in recent years. The serious stuff was already illegal, so why make trivial things illegal too? I think the answer lies more in publicity stunts than anything else. The police aren't going to arrest everyone who annoys the opposition at a football match, but giving them the power to do so is almost certain to lead to abuse of that power, either through malice, or ignorance. Someone will be arrested for singing "God Save The Queen" or "The Soldiers' Song" and it will make matters worse, not better. A bill that was supposed to tackle hatred on the internet doesn't seem to understand the internet. Those vexatiously arrested will become martyrs on their various football forums. Meanwhile those on the forum will be wanting everyone who supports of plays for their opposition to be arrested under the legislation. The ludicrous Lennon-racism allegations of last reason will played out every week with "he blessed himself coming the park! lock him up!". Or "that guy's waving a Union Jack at Lennon, why's he not locked up??".
Being a walloper shouldn't be illegal. Like adultery, it should be seen as wrong, not illegal.
While all this bill is all for show, it distracts from two more important matters:
1. The thing that really stops fans from misbehaving is serious sanctions against their club. The docking of points, or closing of stands, change mass behaviour. Punishments for individual fans don't.
2. It doesn't address why people want to misbehave. By making almost all fans potentially guilty, it muddies the waters about the actual moral arguments to do with sectarianism and racism.
I fear that next season is actually going to be worse than this year because of this legislation
Monday 23 May 2011
Refereeing stats
When @fitzpas posted the stats below, I got a bit excited about them, partly as they matched my worldview
However, when I thought more about it, I'm not sure it was really reliable. Both the graphs are related to the number of red cards, and the number of red cards in each case is a very small number. Two more sendings off would entirely change the nature of the graph. The sample size for sendings off is too small to be conclusive - it might be a sign that refs are going easy on Rangers, or it might be a statistical anomaly.
So I decided to process the data from the year before to see if stood up to scrutiny. Also added some new metrics, for example for each team i also processed data for the team playing against that team. So Celtic's opponents are the all the other teams in the league, but just in their games against Celtic. I also added stats for all home teams and all away teams, and, because the rest of Scotland go on about it, the combined stats for the "old firm" and their opponents.
Here's a league table sorted by fouls per red card
the first thing to point out is that Falkirk had no sendings off, so though I artificially made it 1000 to keep my spreadsheet happy, technically their rating is "infinity". In general, the stats are all over the place. It takes Aberdeen 47 fouls to get a sending off, and Hamilton
507. If referees were 10 times stricter with Aberdeen than Hamilton, we would know about it.
So I think this stat has little practical value. The only possible exceptions are that home teams have to do a lot more fouling to get a man sent off than away teams. This can be backed up because cumulatively there is a lot more data to back that up. To a lesser extent you could argue that there is no evidence that the old firm combined are treated more leniently than their opponents, as there is quite a lot of data for that too.
here's the league table sorted by Yellows Per Red. Again, Falkirk have infinity, and the other results are similar to the previous table, so I'm not going to go in to that in detail.
Now on to Fouls per Yellow
the advantages of this sorting is that there are a lot more yellows than reds, so there is enough data to suggest that it might be reliable. One thing I would point out is that Celtic's opponents can commit over 10 fouls before it leads to a bookings. With Rangers' opponents that is cut by a third. The stats for Celtic and Rangers are similar to each other, but the way their opponents are treated are significantly different. People were also slow to get booked in Motherwell; both Motherwell and their opponents. The home team are slightly favoured over the away team, and Aberdeen are not treated particularly well (though there opponents are treated in a neutral way).
The strength of this measure is the amount of data available in one year, but the downside is it has less impact on the outcome of the game. The number of sendings off would be more significant, but you would have to process about 10 years of data to make it reliable, which I haven't done.
However, when I thought more about it, I'm not sure it was really reliable. Both the graphs are related to the number of red cards, and the number of red cards in each case is a very small number. Two more sendings off would entirely change the nature of the graph. The sample size for sendings off is too small to be conclusive - it might be a sign that refs are going easy on Rangers, or it might be a statistical anomaly.
So I decided to process the data from the year before to see if stood up to scrutiny. Also added some new metrics, for example for each team i also processed data for the team playing against that team. So Celtic's opponents are the all the other teams in the league, but just in their games against Celtic. I also added stats for all home teams and all away teams, and, because the rest of Scotland go on about it, the combined stats for the "old firm" and their opponents.
Here's a league table sorted by fouls per red card
the first thing to point out is that Falkirk had no sendings off, so though I artificially made it 1000 to keep my spreadsheet happy, technically their rating is "infinity". In general, the stats are all over the place. It takes Aberdeen 47 fouls to get a sending off, and Hamilton
507. If referees were 10 times stricter with Aberdeen than Hamilton, we would know about it.
So I think this stat has little practical value. The only possible exceptions are that home teams have to do a lot more fouling to get a man sent off than away teams. This can be backed up because cumulatively there is a lot more data to back that up. To a lesser extent you could argue that there is no evidence that the old firm combined are treated more leniently than their opponents, as there is quite a lot of data for that too.
here's the league table sorted by Yellows Per Red. Again, Falkirk have infinity, and the other results are similar to the previous table, so I'm not going to go in to that in detail.
Now on to Fouls per Yellow
the advantages of this sorting is that there are a lot more yellows than reds, so there is enough data to suggest that it might be reliable. One thing I would point out is that Celtic's opponents can commit over 10 fouls before it leads to a bookings. With Rangers' opponents that is cut by a third. The stats for Celtic and Rangers are similar to each other, but the way their opponents are treated are significantly different. People were also slow to get booked in Motherwell; both Motherwell and their opponents. The home team are slightly favoured over the away team, and Aberdeen are not treated particularly well (though there opponents are treated in a neutral way).
The strength of this measure is the amount of data available in one year, but the downside is it has less impact on the outcome of the game. The number of sendings off would be more significant, but you would have to process about 10 years of data to make it reliable, which I haven't done.
Friday 20 May 2011
Neil Lennon, racism, and me
Back in March, the BBC ran this story in the aftermath of "that" Celtic-Rangers game http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12659077 along with front page headlines in many papers. It seemed odd to me that the police would publicise unsubstantiated allegations in this way, especially when the defendant was the victim of death threats. This case seemed particularly odd as the complainants had already published their "evidence" on youtube and it was clearly farcical. Maybe this level of exposure was normal; I'm not a media person or a police spokesman.
Around the same time, the RST were given the freedom of the BBC to speculate as to what other crimes Neil Lennon may have committed when no-one was looking. This monologue was only interrupted when Paul McBride joined the programme and pointed out that the man they were impugning was at the centre of death threats (this was before they were known to be "viable") and that maybe that should be given some attention. The latest batch of suspect devices had hardly merited a mention in the media, and I was told this was because it had happened before and it was old news.
The media did at least report that Diouf was distancing himself from the allegations of racism, but there the matter was left. There was no follow up to say whether the Celtic manager was guilty or not, and no statement from the police as to the results of their much heralded investigation.
(Lest my interest be considered too partisan, I think the same is true of Steve Jennings of Motherwell who denied allegations of betting fraud. Those allegations were widely reported on and then forgotten without his name being cleared. I don't know what organisation is responsible for that investigation, so i don't know who should be pestered).
Months later the Lennon racism situation had still not been cleared up and various internet "facts" and grown in the vacuum, such as if Celtic didn't sack Lennon, Rangers were going to produce proof he wasn't born in Hawaii. So I approached a few journalists on twitter asking about that and the Jennings case, but got nowhere. Eventually I contacted police spokesman and pillar of the establishment Rob Shorthouse, who was very helpful and looked into it for me and then released a statement to the press. Hence the story in today's Daily Record (which I'm not going to link you to as it's still the Daily Record) clearing up that Lennon was not guilty of racially abusing Diouf. I know we all knew that but, I think it's important to have the police put it to bed.
Here are some quotes from the article:
Strathclyde Police: "The matter was investigated and reported to the fiscal. The file was returned marked 'no proceedings' due to a lack of evidence."
Paul McBride QC [PMQC]: "This has been a waste of time and money. The alleged victim didn't even make a complaint"
Sources close to Diouf branded the claims "nonsense".
Around the same time, the RST were given the freedom of the BBC to speculate as to what other crimes Neil Lennon may have committed when no-one was looking. This monologue was only interrupted when Paul McBride joined the programme and pointed out that the man they were impugning was at the centre of death threats (this was before they were known to be "viable") and that maybe that should be given some attention. The latest batch of suspect devices had hardly merited a mention in the media, and I was told this was because it had happened before and it was old news.
The media did at least report that Diouf was distancing himself from the allegations of racism, but there the matter was left. There was no follow up to say whether the Celtic manager was guilty or not, and no statement from the police as to the results of their much heralded investigation.
(Lest my interest be considered too partisan, I think the same is true of Steve Jennings of Motherwell who denied allegations of betting fraud. Those allegations were widely reported on and then forgotten without his name being cleared. I don't know what organisation is responsible for that investigation, so i don't know who should be pestered).
Months later the Lennon racism situation had still not been cleared up and various internet "facts" and grown in the vacuum, such as if Celtic didn't sack Lennon, Rangers were going to produce proof he wasn't born in Hawaii. So I approached a few journalists on twitter asking about that and the Jennings case, but got nowhere. Eventually I contacted police spokesman and pillar of the establishment Rob Shorthouse, who was very helpful and looked into it for me and then released a statement to the press. Hence the story in today's Daily Record (which I'm not going to link you to as it's still the Daily Record) clearing up that Lennon was not guilty of racially abusing Diouf. I know we all knew that but, I think it's important to have the police put it to bed.
Here are some quotes from the article:
Strathclyde Police: "The matter was investigated and reported to the fiscal. The file was returned marked 'no proceedings' due to a lack of evidence."
Paul McBride QC [PMQC]: "This has been a waste of time and money. The alleged victim didn't even make a complaint"
Sources close to Diouf branded the claims "nonsense".
Friday 13 May 2011
Why does Neil Lennon attract more trouble than Martin O'Neill?
Both are from Northern Ireland. Both are from a Catholic background. Both managed Celtic. So why does Neil Lennon get it in the neck more than Martin O'Neill did, or indeed Anton Rogan did?
Those abusing Neil Lennon most often cite his abrasive nature. Certainly, he's not a shrinking violet. He was more of an abrasive player than Jackie McNamara or Shaun Maloney. However, he was certainly no more abrasive than say Robbie Savage, Dennis Wise, or Darren Jackson. Not to mention Diouf, McCullouch, and Novo. I can't think of a player that was seriously injured by Lennon during his playing career. In his managerial career he has sometimes been outspoken. Again, is this any more the case than with Ferguson, Wenger, or Mourinho? Smith? I think not. He is occasionally abrasive but not unusually so. Not enough to attract the kind of vitriol he does at matches, never mind the death threats.
I suspect that the main reason Lennon and O'Neill are treated differently is that Lennon played for Celtic and Northern Ireland at the same time. Lennon was booed by Northern Ireland fans, and then Hearts fans decided to follow suit partly out of their own bigotry, and partly out of a childish desire to boo along as if they were at a pantomime. Soon almost every team in Scotland were booing a man they hadn't booed before, and who hadn't been booed in his time in England. It's harder to randomly single out a manager (do you boo a substitution?) but there was also never the catalyst of O'Neill being booed at Windsor park because he never played for Celtic. Football is often blighted by copycat crimes; when there is one pitch invasion, there is often another the next week. coin-throwing begets coin-throwing, laser pens beget laser pens. The whole Lennophobia campaign started out as an anti-Catholic anti-Celtic anti-Irish copycat "lark".
The other main difference between O'Neill and Lennon is that Lennon is more defiant in the face of bigotry than O'Neill was. But only slightly. Many people in Scotland think that when Lennon is abused he should put his head down and walk away in order to keep the public peace. By challenging fans who rain abuse on his, he is seen as throwing oil on the fire. While Martin O'Neill didn't tackle these things head on as often (possibly because he wasn't faced with them as often), he wasn't entirely meek in the face of confrontation. In 2004 he marched Neil Lennon himself over to the Celtic fans at Ibrox after "sectarian and racist abuse" and lambasted for it by many in the Scottish media. (You can read Jim Traynor's response here; http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8213827/48/). The " irrepressible Taig" as Roddy Forsyth refers to it in his criticism of the Scottish bigot's mindset is unacceptable to many in Scotland and when anyone shows defiance to their world view the victim becomes the cause.
So, why was Anton Rogan not treated the same way as Lennon? He was booed by Northern Ireland fans, but this didn't really spread. Partly, this is because Anton Rogan wasn't as good. Beyond that though, they played in different eras. Partly this is because Lennon played in at a time when the newspapers were in the habit of inventing bogeymen and then telling us all to hate them. Or in Jade Goody's case, hatethemthenlovethemthenhatethemthenlovethem. more importantly, though Neil Lennon played and managed in an era where internet forums were used to whip up hatred, and in recent times have come to be seen as mainstream. Do you remember the first time you looked at followfollow? I don't really go in for football forums; there's too much reading through "we should play a 3-2-3-1-7 formation and sign Drogba and play him in the hole" nonsense. When I was first pointed towards followfollow i was genuinely gobsmacked. There were phases of shock, amusement and disgust, but above all bewilderment. It didn't seem to reflect the country I lived in. While Rangers always seemed to have a sectarian basis the rest of Scottish society didn't. I was called a fenian in the street before I knew what one was, but in terms of bigotry that actually held me back in life I can only think of one incident in a golf club, which was soon fixed when we complained. I played football with Rangers supporters; I worked with Rangers supporters; I was friends with Rangers supporters - hardly any of whom exhibited any sign of extremism. Followfollow was awash with delusional hatred and death threats. It was, however, surely the lunatic fringe of Rangers supporters.
Nowadays FollowFollow and similar organisations are courted by the media. They are invited on the radio, and many opinion pieces in newspapers look as though they have FollowFollow as the target market. Extremism has become mainstream and legitimatised. It's against this backdrop that Lennon is different from Rogan. The hatred and fear of Lennon has been whipped up by sections of the media as well as fans groups to the extent that when a man is sent bombs in the post or assaulted on the sideline thousands celebrate. Openly.
The question is not really about how Lennon is different from anyone, but how we are different from a civilised society.
Those abusing Neil Lennon most often cite his abrasive nature. Certainly, he's not a shrinking violet. He was more of an abrasive player than Jackie McNamara or Shaun Maloney. However, he was certainly no more abrasive than say Robbie Savage, Dennis Wise, or Darren Jackson. Not to mention Diouf, McCullouch, and Novo. I can't think of a player that was seriously injured by Lennon during his playing career. In his managerial career he has sometimes been outspoken. Again, is this any more the case than with Ferguson, Wenger, or Mourinho? Smith? I think not. He is occasionally abrasive but not unusually so. Not enough to attract the kind of vitriol he does at matches, never mind the death threats.
I suspect that the main reason Lennon and O'Neill are treated differently is that Lennon played for Celtic and Northern Ireland at the same time. Lennon was booed by Northern Ireland fans, and then Hearts fans decided to follow suit partly out of their own bigotry, and partly out of a childish desire to boo along as if they were at a pantomime. Soon almost every team in Scotland were booing a man they hadn't booed before, and who hadn't been booed in his time in England. It's harder to randomly single out a manager (do you boo a substitution?) but there was also never the catalyst of O'Neill being booed at Windsor park because he never played for Celtic. Football is often blighted by copycat crimes; when there is one pitch invasion, there is often another the next week. coin-throwing begets coin-throwing, laser pens beget laser pens. The whole Lennophobia campaign started out as an anti-Catholic anti-Celtic anti-Irish copycat "lark".
The other main difference between O'Neill and Lennon is that Lennon is more defiant in the face of bigotry than O'Neill was. But only slightly. Many people in Scotland think that when Lennon is abused he should put his head down and walk away in order to keep the public peace. By challenging fans who rain abuse on his, he is seen as throwing oil on the fire. While Martin O'Neill didn't tackle these things head on as often (possibly because he wasn't faced with them as often), he wasn't entirely meek in the face of confrontation. In 2004 he marched Neil Lennon himself over to the Celtic fans at Ibrox after "sectarian and racist abuse" and lambasted for it by many in the Scottish media. (You can read Jim Traynor's response here; http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8213827/48/). The " irrepressible Taig" as Roddy Forsyth refers to it in his criticism of the Scottish bigot's mindset is unacceptable to many in Scotland and when anyone shows defiance to their world view the victim becomes the cause.
So, why was Anton Rogan not treated the same way as Lennon? He was booed by Northern Ireland fans, but this didn't really spread. Partly, this is because Anton Rogan wasn't as good. Beyond that though, they played in different eras. Partly this is because Lennon played in at a time when the newspapers were in the habit of inventing bogeymen and then telling us all to hate them. Or in Jade Goody's case, hatethemthenlovethemthenhatethemthenlovethem. more importantly, though Neil Lennon played and managed in an era where internet forums were used to whip up hatred, and in recent times have come to be seen as mainstream. Do you remember the first time you looked at followfollow? I don't really go in for football forums; there's too much reading through "we should play a 3-2-3-1-7 formation and sign Drogba and play him in the hole" nonsense. When I was first pointed towards followfollow i was genuinely gobsmacked. There were phases of shock, amusement and disgust, but above all bewilderment. It didn't seem to reflect the country I lived in. While Rangers always seemed to have a sectarian basis the rest of Scottish society didn't. I was called a fenian in the street before I knew what one was, but in terms of bigotry that actually held me back in life I can only think of one incident in a golf club, which was soon fixed when we complained. I played football with Rangers supporters; I worked with Rangers supporters; I was friends with Rangers supporters - hardly any of whom exhibited any sign of extremism. Followfollow was awash with delusional hatred and death threats. It was, however, surely the lunatic fringe of Rangers supporters.
Nowadays FollowFollow and similar organisations are courted by the media. They are invited on the radio, and many opinion pieces in newspapers look as though they have FollowFollow as the target market. Extremism has become mainstream and legitimatised. It's against this backdrop that Lennon is different from Rogan. The hatred and fear of Lennon has been whipped up by sections of the media as well as fans groups to the extent that when a man is sent bombs in the post or assaulted on the sideline thousands celebrate. Openly.
The question is not really about how Lennon is different from anyone, but how we are different from a civilised society.
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Football's just a branch of science
Written over a year ago, before DougieDougie etc...
In reaction to Celtic's dossier of dodgy refereeing decisions, I've
seen a few people recently say "any team could come up with a list of
decisions that have gone against their team". This led to me thinking
"Well, could they? if they could, would all the lists be equally
compelling?". It's easy to list anecdotal evidence from far-off cup
finals, but is there any way to make it more scientific?
I think there could be, but it would require a TV station to
orchestrate some scientific endeavour. Here is my experiment.
The TV company approach the most popular fans website for each SPL
team. They ask them to nominate incidents from this season's SPL where
they think that their team has been hard-done-by. let's say 20 per
team. how they decide on the 20 is up to them (an internet vote might
be hijacked by other teams, for example).
We now need to have these incidents evaluated by bona fide neutrals.
I'm going to assume that no-one in Scotland is neutral, not even Chick
Young.
So, the TV company go to mainland Europe and get people to rate them
for outrageousness. 0 being "the referee was absolutely right", 10
being "that goal in a Watford game that was well past the post". The
volunteer is shown a clip at random, and asked to rate it. this is
repeated till they get fed up. If a Falkirk incident against Hibs is
given a 10, Falkirk are given 10 points, and Hibs lose 10. each have
their "incidents voted on" increased by one.
after lots and lots of ratings, each team's average number of points
per incidents voted on is put in to a league table. those at the top
are the teams most sinned against, and those at the bottom, those most
favoured.
for people to do the rating, I would think people at five-a-side
centres would do, but if you want to increase the newsworthiness,
maybe people taking UEFA coaching classes would be better. but less
likely to volunteer, perhaps. foreign referees would probably still
back the referee, but having them as a different sample might be
interesting too.
this would of course involve people in said TV company going on a trip
to europe, but i don't think that should be a problem, somehow.
The results would lead to lots of discussion and hits on the relevant
website i'm sure, and would actually add to the sum of human
knowledge.
in short, it would be a bit like hotornot.com for refereeing
decisions. dallasorgallus if you will.
Until some sort of scientific measurement is attempted by the media,
the words "paranoia" and "conspiracy theory" should be stricken from
lexicon.
In reaction to Celtic's dossier of dodgy refereeing decisions, I've
seen a few people recently say "any team could come up with a list of
decisions that have gone against their team". This led to me thinking
"Well, could they? if they could, would all the lists be equally
compelling?". It's easy to list anecdotal evidence from far-off cup
finals, but is there any way to make it more scientific?
I think there could be, but it would require a TV station to
orchestrate some scientific endeavour. Here is my experiment.
The TV company approach the most popular fans website for each SPL
team. They ask them to nominate incidents from this season's SPL where
they think that their team has been hard-done-by. let's say 20 per
team. how they decide on the 20 is up to them (an internet vote might
be hijacked by other teams, for example).
We now need to have these incidents evaluated by bona fide neutrals.
I'm going to assume that no-one in Scotland is neutral, not even Chick
Young.
So, the TV company go to mainland Europe and get people to rate them
for outrageousness. 0 being "the referee was absolutely right", 10
being "that goal in a Watford game that was well past the post". The
volunteer is shown a clip at random, and asked to rate it. this is
repeated till they get fed up. If a Falkirk incident against Hibs is
given a 10, Falkirk are given 10 points, and Hibs lose 10. each have
their "incidents voted on" increased by one.
after lots and lots of ratings, each team's average number of points
per incidents voted on is put in to a league table. those at the top
are the teams most sinned against, and those at the bottom, those most
favoured.
for people to do the rating, I would think people at five-a-side
centres would do, but if you want to increase the newsworthiness,
maybe people taking UEFA coaching classes would be better. but less
likely to volunteer, perhaps. foreign referees would probably still
back the referee, but having them as a different sample might be
interesting too.
this would of course involve people in said TV company going on a trip
to europe, but i don't think that should be a problem, somehow.
The results would lead to lots of discussion and hits on the relevant
website i'm sure, and would actually add to the sum of human
knowledge.
in short, it would be a bit like hotornot.com for refereeing
decisions. dallasorgallus if you will.
Until some sort of scientific measurement is attempted by the media,
the words "paranoia" and "conspiracy theory" should be stricken from
lexicon.
A reluctant football blog
I love football - it's the best game to watch, and I would (and will) go mad if I couldn't play it. I'm not really that keen on talking about it though. Almost everything interesting to say about formations etc, I have said by the age of 22. And to talk about football I have to pretend to give credence to other people's opinions on football, which is rarely the case. If I was living in France and a fan of PSG or whoever I don't think I would ever feel the need to write about it.
For that reason I'm not on any football forums (fora, in case John Bollan is reading this). Only when DougieDougiegate took off on twitter did I become active because it seemed more like campaigning that just opinions. (Sometimes too campaigny - sometimes permacampaigny). Football never makes me angry, really. I'm a Celtic fan, but when Celtic lose the league on the last day of the season makes me a bit grumpy, but doesn't necessarily ruin my day. I'm 36 and have never been booked. I'm by no means a firebrand. The things that do make angry and bias to do with Celtic, Rangers and religion, from fans, media, referees, and wider officialdom.
So, when i feel forced to write something here, it's likely to be on those topics, and not the photography stuff that went before, and proved rather fruitless
For that reason I'm not on any football forums (fora, in case John Bollan is reading this). Only when DougieDougiegate took off on twitter did I become active because it seemed more like campaigning that just opinions. (Sometimes too campaigny - sometimes permacampaigny). Football never makes me angry, really. I'm a Celtic fan, but when Celtic lose the league on the last day of the season makes me a bit grumpy, but doesn't necessarily ruin my day. I'm 36 and have never been booked. I'm by no means a firebrand. The things that do make angry and bias to do with Celtic, Rangers and religion, from fans, media, referees, and wider officialdom.
So, when i feel forced to write something here, it's likely to be on those topics, and not the photography stuff that went before, and proved rather fruitless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Although the police have arrested a few people for online hate crimes related to football, these represent a tiny percentage of the incidents on the web. This has led to fans forming posses (or crowd-sourcing justice) to expose the culprits in other ways. This could increase the number of prosecutions, but has downsides.
Although this is often done in a responsible way, I think that when carried out more widely, any method that doesn’t involve the police will be dangerous. There is always the danger of vigilantes publishing addresses, which is wrong if the person is guilty and the address is correct, and even more wrong if mistakes are made. Similarly there has been the naming and shaming of people who turn out to be children, which is perhaps not desirable. It also likely that this approach would soon lead to a slew of tit-for-tat vexatious allegations which the police would ignore.
So the question is, how could the zeal of the masses be harnessed to allow the police to make much larger inroads into this problem?
I think there there should be a web interface where people can register, and be background-checked by the police. The police can then work out how many allegations they can handle in a week and set a capacity for how many allegations can be made by each user. Initially these would be spread equally over all the registered users, but the police can rate the quality of allegation so that those who do well (in terms of seriousness of allegation and evidence provided) are allowed to make more allegations, and others fewer allegations.
The police would have to provide clear guidelines on what they wanted to be told about, and the kind of evidence that should, and shouldn’t, be gathered. the total capacity for allegations would also be a measurement of how seriously the police are taking the problem.
Ideally, the web interface would all people to enter URLs and then the police application would screenscrape a copy of the pages immediately as evidence so it’s easy for the user, and the user can’t photoshop a screencapture. however, the need to log-in may make this difficult in practice.
It would be important to have some kind of feedback loop to “users” so that they know their allegations are being acted on, and ideally leading to convictions. If it takes 6 months for anything beyond a nominal notification to make it back to the user, they will think they are wasting their time.