Sandy Campbell ⚽ looks at the superficiality of Scotland’s media response to the tip of a very deep iceberg - the Old Firm and the demonisation of one half of its football fans. 

Choosing a football team when you’re a kid is a once in a lifetime call. Then you’re stuck with them. You belong to that tribe and what they stand for - for life. Welcome to the Hotel California: ‘you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave’.

That’s certainly how it is for me. Hi-bees till I die. So why is it so hard to understand the behaviour of Rangers fans in Glasgow’s George Square in May this year? (Note that I choose the word ‘understand’: to empathise with; to be able to put yourself in their shoes. Not endorse, judge or condemn.)

This month Hibs lost in the Cup Final again; to a Hibee of my vintage, such an outcome is all too familiar territory (This time to a good team from a nice club – you just can’t get worked up about St Johnstone.). Many a year I’ve been at Hampden more than Easter Road. Only to make the disappointed trek home, weighed heavy with meat pies and chagrin.

What is so hard to understand about another sporting ‘tribe’ getting out of hand in their explosive expression of relief and joy at their crowning as supreme Champions! - after near extinction followed by a decade of humiliation, and what felt like a long, long road back. ‘The dark years are finally over. Let’s party!’

I remember a very similar feeling when Hibs won the Cup in 2016. The 114 years’ wait was finally over. Hibs will win the Cup again soon I’m sure, but I was there at that pivotal moment when our curse was buried - and in what style with 10 minutes to go against Rangers. Days don’t come much better than that.

Many of us misbehaved that day too. When remembering 2016 with Hibees I meet, the question always comes up: “were you on the pitch?” (I wasn’t by the way). “Were you at George Square?” will become the same for Rangers fans. So, the overwhelming outrage at Rangers must be about something else.

Covid? Well yes, people will have been infected after events at George Square. But so too from the outpowering of direct action in Pollokshields and the Palestinian solidarity demos over the same weekend. Glasgow, at the time of writing, is paying the price for all of them.

Of course, it is the charge of sectarianism that raises the George Square scenes to new levels. Much shaking of heads, Twitter outrage, condemnation by politicians, and criticism of police tactics, followed by official statements from the Club reassuring us that such behaviour is not, and never will be tolerated by Rangers FC. Yet we all know that it will.

Sectarianism is an interesting word. One that seems to be used exclusively for referring to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the West of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is it worse or better than racism, homophobia, or plain old inter-ethnic conflict? The Serbs and the Croats are as similar and as different as the Scots and the Irish. The glue that binds their different Slavic tribal allegiances are also religious: Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. But ‘sectarianism’ is the word reserved for our bespoke shame and our centuries of entanglement with our Ulster cousins on both sides of the divide.

‘Sects’ conjure up images of crazy people, brainwashed by fundamentalist teachings from deranged self-appointed gurus. Could it be that by labelling our conflict ‘sectarian’ it gives us the moral authority to condemn outright from a comfortable distance and thus avoid taking any of the grievances on either side seriously? The mirror image of the same sense of rooted superiority that Walter Smith spoke about when reflecting on his time as Rangers’ manager.

A football crowd is a mob; a mob that it is usually hugely enjoyable to be a part of. No elected leaders or system of government, but a bond of belonging and an ever-changing mood; moods that can sometimes turn ugly in a heartbeat.

I know it’s just a game. But the Old Firm are a significant and visible part of Scotland’s cultural fabric. Two teams that thrive on a sporting rivalry without equal, and who also divide along political/religious fault lines; international sporting emissaries for our country, yet neither rally round the flag of Scotland.

Throughout my life I have befriended many Rangers supporters. Fine people who care about the things I care about, including many who devote themselves in their daily lives to resolving some of the social injustices that stubbornly persist in Scotland today. Then I see Rangers fans draping themselves in the relics and colours of Protestant Unionism, and I think; “how can you be a Rangers fan?”

It’s not the songs I object to. In my youth in the 70’s I joined in with ‘We’re off to Dublin in the Green’ on the terraces at Easter Road; a considerably more bloodthirsty song than ‘The Sash’ – which is actually a damn good tune. What on earth possessed the Scottish Parliament to ban these songs. Pointing an accusatory finger at singing crowds, backed up with hollow threats, rarely works. Far from it. Such heavy handedness only makes disobedience more attractive. Didn’t these people ever go to school?

It shouldn’t be illegal to be proud of the story of your tribe’s victories or defeats. Both Rangers and Celtic grew out of the communities who lived through the religious divide that shamed Scotland for much of the last 150 years. Communities who were, because of how life was in those days, homogeneous in their separateness, united in their different religions and symbols of belonging. But in these days of quick judgements, openly declaring a Protestant identity feels border line ‘hate crime’ territory.

So, carry on singing your songs that honour your heritage and bragging about your victories on the park. Be proud of the red, white and blue and your Protestant roots, but please, please, also be proud of being Scots. It’s easy: get a saltire and stick a red rampant lion on it. And Celtic: as much as I love the colours, the design, and the country whose national flag it is – lose the tricolour!

Sandy Campbell is a life long supporter of Edinburgh soccer team, Hibernian FC.

Sticking Up For The Prods!

Sandy Campbell ⚽ looks at the superficiality of Scotland’s media response to the tip of a very deep iceberg - the Old Firm and the demonisation of one half of its football fans. 

Choosing a football team when you’re a kid is a once in a lifetime call. Then you’re stuck with them. You belong to that tribe and what they stand for - for life. Welcome to the Hotel California: ‘you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave’.

That’s certainly how it is for me. Hi-bees till I die. So why is it so hard to understand the behaviour of Rangers fans in Glasgow’s George Square in May this year? (Note that I choose the word ‘understand’: to empathise with; to be able to put yourself in their shoes. Not endorse, judge or condemn.)

This month Hibs lost in the Cup Final again; to a Hibee of my vintage, such an outcome is all too familiar territory (This time to a good team from a nice club – you just can’t get worked up about St Johnstone.). Many a year I’ve been at Hampden more than Easter Road. Only to make the disappointed trek home, weighed heavy with meat pies and chagrin.

What is so hard to understand about another sporting ‘tribe’ getting out of hand in their explosive expression of relief and joy at their crowning as supreme Champions! - after near extinction followed by a decade of humiliation, and what felt like a long, long road back. ‘The dark years are finally over. Let’s party!’

I remember a very similar feeling when Hibs won the Cup in 2016. The 114 years’ wait was finally over. Hibs will win the Cup again soon I’m sure, but I was there at that pivotal moment when our curse was buried - and in what style with 10 minutes to go against Rangers. Days don’t come much better than that.

Many of us misbehaved that day too. When remembering 2016 with Hibees I meet, the question always comes up: “were you on the pitch?” (I wasn’t by the way). “Were you at George Square?” will become the same for Rangers fans. So, the overwhelming outrage at Rangers must be about something else.

Covid? Well yes, people will have been infected after events at George Square. But so too from the outpowering of direct action in Pollokshields and the Palestinian solidarity demos over the same weekend. Glasgow, at the time of writing, is paying the price for all of them.

Of course, it is the charge of sectarianism that raises the George Square scenes to new levels. Much shaking of heads, Twitter outrage, condemnation by politicians, and criticism of police tactics, followed by official statements from the Club reassuring us that such behaviour is not, and never will be tolerated by Rangers FC. Yet we all know that it will.

Sectarianism is an interesting word. One that seems to be used exclusively for referring to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the West of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is it worse or better than racism, homophobia, or plain old inter-ethnic conflict? The Serbs and the Croats are as similar and as different as the Scots and the Irish. The glue that binds their different Slavic tribal allegiances are also religious: Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. But ‘sectarianism’ is the word reserved for our bespoke shame and our centuries of entanglement with our Ulster cousins on both sides of the divide.

‘Sects’ conjure up images of crazy people, brainwashed by fundamentalist teachings from deranged self-appointed gurus. Could it be that by labelling our conflict ‘sectarian’ it gives us the moral authority to condemn outright from a comfortable distance and thus avoid taking any of the grievances on either side seriously? The mirror image of the same sense of rooted superiority that Walter Smith spoke about when reflecting on his time as Rangers’ manager.

A football crowd is a mob; a mob that it is usually hugely enjoyable to be a part of. No elected leaders or system of government, but a bond of belonging and an ever-changing mood; moods that can sometimes turn ugly in a heartbeat.

I know it’s just a game. But the Old Firm are a significant and visible part of Scotland’s cultural fabric. Two teams that thrive on a sporting rivalry without equal, and who also divide along political/religious fault lines; international sporting emissaries for our country, yet neither rally round the flag of Scotland.

Throughout my life I have befriended many Rangers supporters. Fine people who care about the things I care about, including many who devote themselves in their daily lives to resolving some of the social injustices that stubbornly persist in Scotland today. Then I see Rangers fans draping themselves in the relics and colours of Protestant Unionism, and I think; “how can you be a Rangers fan?”

It’s not the songs I object to. In my youth in the 70’s I joined in with ‘We’re off to Dublin in the Green’ on the terraces at Easter Road; a considerably more bloodthirsty song than ‘The Sash’ – which is actually a damn good tune. What on earth possessed the Scottish Parliament to ban these songs. Pointing an accusatory finger at singing crowds, backed up with hollow threats, rarely works. Far from it. Such heavy handedness only makes disobedience more attractive. Didn’t these people ever go to school?

It shouldn’t be illegal to be proud of the story of your tribe’s victories or defeats. Both Rangers and Celtic grew out of the communities who lived through the religious divide that shamed Scotland for much of the last 150 years. Communities who were, because of how life was in those days, homogeneous in their separateness, united in their different religions and symbols of belonging. But in these days of quick judgements, openly declaring a Protestant identity feels border line ‘hate crime’ territory.

So, carry on singing your songs that honour your heritage and bragging about your victories on the park. Be proud of the red, white and blue and your Protestant roots, but please, please, also be proud of being Scots. It’s easy: get a saltire and stick a red rampant lion on it. And Celtic: as much as I love the colours, the design, and the country whose national flag it is – lose the tricolour!

Sandy Campbell is a life long supporter of Edinburgh soccer team, Hibernian FC.

59 comments:

  1. Welcome to TPQ Sandy - an excellent article.
    First time we have had a Hibee here.
    I think a real woke snobbishness has crept into the official attitude about soccer fans. Good to see some clarification of matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sandy asked “why is it so hard to understand the behaviour of Rangers fans in Glasgow’s George Square in May this year?”

    I would say that it isn’t hard to understand. There are a couple of things at play, the first of which is to say, simply, that this is what a significant proportion of Rangers fans do: march, chant sectarian ramblings, drink, urinate in public, fight, and generally engage in performative anti-social behaviour. It is not enough to do this in their own dingy drinking clubs: they must ensure they have an audience, and all the better if it’s a hostile one.

    In this regard, they have much in common with the Orange Order, for whom making a public spectacle of themselves is an integral part of their damaged identity. And, of course, there is significant overlap between the drink sodden, street pissing, nihilistically violent, lumpen Rangers support and members and supporters of the Orange Order.

    Sandy later stated that “ … in these days of quick judgements, openly declaring a Protestant identity feels border line ‘hate crime’ territory.”

    I am moved to ask: when do those “openly declaring a Protestant identity” do so in a respectful, restrained, and orderly way? It is important to categorise accurately. Those of the Protestant faith, who attend Protestant churches, worship their God, and feel no need to act out in public a la George Sq or the Marching Season.

    You see, those at George Square, or on an Orange March, publicly declaring a Protestant identity, they aren’t talking about Christian theology (that would involve a level of education and curiosity at odds with the cohort), they are saying something quite different. Kevin Myers put it like this:

    “They have a church, too. In their illiterate and incoherent scheme of things … their real religion is Rangers Football Club … to the large thug element amongst the Rangers fans the key to their identity is almost like the Third Secret of Fatima. It is this: NO FENIANS here.”

    Rangers have serious, historical, and systemic issues with bigotry, as the recent documentary about Sir Alex Ferguson acutely demonstrated. What comes first: the bigoted football club, or the bigoted supporters? Mo Johnson and Mark Walters aren’t that long ago.

    Iain Archer had the measure of Rangers in 1976, when he wrote:

    "This has to be said about Rangers, as a Scottish Football club they are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This country would be a better place if Rangers did not exist."

    I don’t disagree. Rangers need a reformation. Unless and until that happens, they will continue as a sort of care-in-the-community scheme for the most dysfunctional, politically illiterate and thuggish fans in Scotland. Or, with grim irony, the United Kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brandon
    Everything you wrote about Rangers fans you could write about Celtic fans. The Green Brigade, sectarian songs, bigotry, drunkeness, pissing in public, singing songs about the beheading of Lee Rigby etc. There are good and bad among all supporters but you only focus on Rangers. Why? As I said before , the bitterness is hanging out of you. Hatred damages the vessel that carries it. Let it go Brandon. Chill a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is never a good idea for the fans of one football team to try to occupy the moral high ground in relation to another team.

    The sickening racism of fans of my club, Leeds United, and their singing of the Munich 58 song were real sources of shame and embarrassment to me. The almost complete absence of this idiocy at Elland Road is a source of pride to me. But the club's hooligan fan sub-culture is, to paraphrase Anthony, part of Leeds United history and is not something any LUFC follower can airbrush from our history.

    Yes there are still deeply unpleasant ethnic bigotries attached to Rangers but the Catholic player ban is long gone and their manager is a high profile Liverpool Catholic. So some credit where it is due.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is dangerous to essentialise a body of fans. Saw it being done after Hillsborough as a police strategy and it turned out wholly wrong.
    What has been said about Rangers fans is pretty much what was said every year about the nationalists students in Belfast's Holy lands during Patrick's Day festivities.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Peter

    You asked why I focused on Rangers fans. Two reasons, the first is that Sandy wrote about Rangers. The second is the overlap of a significant proportion of the Rangers support to engage in performative anti-social behaviour, which is analogous with the Orange Order.

    You’ve now said that hatred/bitterness are “hanging out of me” twice. I invited you the last time to evidence your claim. You didn’t. I’ll invite you to do so again.

    @ Barry

    I think that Rangers, as a club, have done some work in redressing their past mistakes. Their head of comms & media, a former DUP councillor and a senior member of the Orange Order, has said some media friendly things about inclusivity. I guess we will see how things go. From a PR point of view, George Square was a disaster, as was Rangers “statement” following on from Hibs’ cup win in 2016.

    A football club is something of a thought leader for its support base. Rangers staunchly institutionalised bigotry only ceased, in historical terms, very recently. It is simply unrealistic to expect the supporters to change rapidly.

    It’s also worth saying that the team, if not the support, were magnificent last season, and richly deserved their title.

    @ Anthony

    I have read about the Holylands students – it is an interesting comparison, but I don’t think it fits. The students don’t have an institutional focal point, and neither do they (as far as I know) strive to be “seen” like those at George Square (and on Orange marches) thirst for. In terms of anti-social behaviour, there are similarities, though.

    The GAA could make an interesting comparison, but I don’t know much about it.

    The behaviour of Rangers fans at George Square fits with my analysis of loyalism as an entity which must dominate to exist, but that is perhaps a subject for another article at some point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The St Patrick's Day event became a yearly ritual despite appeals and warnings. Residents were terrified. The ritual institutionalised the event. I don't recall joining the chorus of condemnation even though I had friends who felt greatly put out by the behaviour because I took the attitude that it was pretty much the type of disruption experienced in Springhill during the West Belfast Feile. Annoying but something that went with the turf mixed in with youthfulness.
      To essentialise Rangers fans as this mass of heaving bigots causing mayhem on the streets all because it is what they do and who they are, seems unwarranted to me. Perhaps I am overly mindful of what happened to the Liverpool fans after Hillsborough.
      I anticipated that Peter would feel the way he did as a result of your comment because when it cam through I didn't find it hateful as such but I did feel Rangers fans would would be upset by the tone which rang contemptuous of them. Not that I am complaining because in it I see the same sort of mocking tone I adopt towards those I consider religious whack jobs. When that happens it is all too understandable that those on the receiving end will think it is hatred.
      The Orange Order has a lot to answer for but in terms of institutional abuse, flagging up its serious failings alone creates the sound to many unionists of one hand clapping considering what the Catholic Church has perpetrated. I look at a man like the late Brian Kennaway a senior Orange Order figure and friend of mine and wish the bishops had half the integrity he had. Should you take that into consideration? It depends on what you want to achieve and whom you want to hear what you are saying.

      Delete
  7. Impossible Sandy to lose the tricolour as it's part of the fabric and history of Celtic FC. It isn't flown in defiance but in celebration, I cannot comment for the other side but selection of your team isn't choice in the west of Scotland socio economic political and religious affiliation are all factors that determine your path. "Old firm" fans are in my experience at least born into their culture and the team is simply part of it. It is genuinely difficult for anyone out with the west of Scotland bubble (exception being Ireland) to understand the factors at play that will determine your loyalties.
    On that note however I really enjoyed this and look forward to reading many many more pieces ...you're not a Jambo so you'll do for me 🤣😂

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ AM

    "To essentialise Rangers fans as this mass of heaving bigots causing mayhem on the streets all because it is what they do and who they are, seems unwarranted to me."

    I did try to make the point that I was not saying all, or even most, Rangers fans are like this. But the proportion that do indeed behave in this matter is significant. I also feel, in Scotland anyway, that there is no equivalence: I cannot think of any other Scottish football teams that have a support who have rioted in Glasgow, Manchester, and elsewhere. I am open to be corrected on that.

    "The Orange Order has a lot to answer for but in terms of institutional abuse, flagging up its serious failings alone creates the sound to many unionists of one hand clapping considering what the Catholic Church has perpetrated."

    I conflated rioting Rangers fans, and the Orange Order, because of similarities in their behaviour. Of course, most Rangers fans, and most Orange members, don't riot, but both institutions have had from their foundation deeply ingrained prejudices. That is inescapable.

    Progressive members of the Orange order to me are like the Progressive Unionist Party, or the Defunct Ulster Democratic Party. They have fine principles and policies, but so little support as to render them almost useless. Again, my opinions here are informed by my wider analysis of loyalism, which I believe was doomed to historical failure at its inception.

    Regarding Peter's accusations: I just find them a bit lazy. I make my points, and I'm quite open about holding loyalism in contempt. To describe that as hateful or bitter is pretty weak. I have condemned sectarianism on these pages many times. Peter and Stevie also vaguely accused me of being a "sneaking regarder" - in doing so, they demonstrate common attitudes held towards those they perceive as Catholic/Republican/Nationalist.

    I think that the loyal orders (and, indeed any organisation intent on marching where it is not wanted, and which is a major cause of violence and destruction) can be criticised on their own. Quite frankly, unionists who bring up the Catholic church when the OO is criticised are not doing it on behalf of those abused by the Catholic church: they're doing it to deflect. I find that behaviour absolutely abhorrent. I am not a Catholic, and I have no desire, or cause, to defend the Catholic church. I refuted the loyalist claim that the Catholic church institutionally supported the IRA because it is the type of myth that facilitated wholesale terrorism against a civilian population.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. when you say a "significant number" of Rangers fans it becomes a collectivisation of the individuals into a group inviting the inference that this is how you feel the collective should be defined. That is reinforced in the absence of any reference to the significant number of fans which dwarf the much less significant number who do not indulge in such activity. And if the qualification comes later rather than sooner it takes on the appearance of an afterthought.
      I don't know if there is an equivalence in Scotland but Peter made an arguable point about Celtic fans. In terms of fans misbehaving, for years we have had English football hooliganism taking on the character of a global brand. The most salient memory I have of Rangers fan is not their behaviour after winning the title but losing their lives at the Ibrox disaster.
      If you conflate Rangers fans and the Orange Order for their similar behaviour and invite your readers to believe that it is a result of their shared loyalism, then it seems germane to raise the worse case of St Patrick's Day in South Belfast's Holy Land which cannot be explained away by loyalism. Your own frank admission that you have a contempt for loyalism (not shared by myself, an avowed opponent of it) might be leading you to focus on causal factors that simply fail to explain.
      Deeply ingrained prejudices are much wider than the Orange Order and Rangers. And you may be open to the counter charge that your own deeply ingrained prejudice about loyalism since its inception leads you to see loyalism in a contemptuous light. Although I think the charge would not stand as I feel there is more depth to your analysis than that.
      Both Peter and Steve can err as easily as anyone else here. And their accusation of a sneaking regarder would not persuade me. But I can see why they will arrive at that conclusion when they interpret your criticism of sectarianism as the necessary lip service before you circle in on your real target.
      The Orange Order can be criticised on its own. I think there is nothing wrong with focusing in on a particular subject. But if its behaviour is explained away by its loyalism, when the same type of behaviour is being conducted by people who are not loyalists, then there is an explanatory failure.
      Nor do I believe that unionists who bring up the behaviour of the Catholic Church when the Orange Order is mentioned always do so to deflect. Peter has as much time for the Orange Order as you have. I think what they are doing is asking the legitimate observation - if the Church escapes your wrath simply because it is not a manifestation of loyalism, it is loyalism, not abuse, you are primarily concerned with.
      When you refer to the wholesale terrorism against a civilian population, your unionist detractors will question your opposition to terrorism against a civilian population if from their perspective they detect a palpable silence when it is the terrorism of the IRA against the Protestant community.
      They don't have the benefit of talking to you off mic as I have. I get it very easy that your disdain for IRA atrocity is as strong as it is for loyalist atrocity. You are addressing people who even without intending to read what you are saying through an ideologically shaped lens. And if you address them from what they feel is an oppositional ideological position, then it would be surprising if their response was other than what it is.
      The problem with an ideological lens is that it so filters the meaning of what is both said and observed, that reasoned communication can encounter more obstacles than it manages to overcome.
      I don't think that ultimately there is anything essentially wrong with being contemptuous of a worldview - I have a disdain for organised religion and young earth creationist idiocy and am not behind the doors in proclaiming it. But at the same time, it would be foolish of me not to grasp how the expression of that contempt can provoke a response in kind. But if contempt is needed to clarify (mockery often is) so be it.

      Delete
  9. I agree totally with Sandy when he says "a football team is for life". I started supporting Man Utd in 1968, I was seven at the time, after our emphatic destruction of Benfica in the European Cup Final - 4-1. I still have my original United scarf, complete with 68 badge sewn on by my late Mother, also a Red. I remember my first time at Old Trafford, 69/70 season and being mesmorised by the atmosphere, something saddly lacking at todays so-called PL souless grounds. Dedpite the 2005 split at Old Trafford, when FC United were formed over the Glazer takeover, we all still support the team on the pitch at Old Trafford, but refuse to give the Glazers a penny. We never left Man Utd (or Big United as we term them) they left us!

    Back in the seventies and probably eighties I cannot imagine for one second, COVID or no COVID United fans not going to Old Trafford if Man Utd were playing behind closed doors. Restrictions or none the Boot Boy, Skins and Suedes gangs of Salford, Collyhurst and Wythenshawe to say nothing of fans from further afield like Yorkshire would have been outside Old Trafford in numbers, if my memory serves me right. No police force could have prevented this, in fact we'd have considered it a challenge, like running across the pitch from the Scoreboard End to the Stretford End without being captured before a game.

    As for sectarianism, Man Utd in those days was a religion. City and Liverpool were a diffferent "religion" to us. We hated City and Liverpool, did that make us "sectarian?" I understand the Old Firm in Glasgow (belated congrats on you, Hibs, beating Rangers 2016) which is, in many cases, particularly in the Rangers camp sectarian. Other fans of both Celtic and Rangers see it as an extention of republicanism/ loyalism conflict. Indeed some Celtic fans are members of the Republican Bands Alliance, no doubt some Rangers fans are members of the loyalist equivallent.

    The song, The Sash which is a lovely tune, is in fact an old Irish love song, My Irish Molly O. It starts off; "she was young and she was beautiful, the likes I never have known. She's the Princess of old Ireland, the primrose of Tyrone" I can't remember the full lyrics but you get the story. Maybe these bigots who apply sectarian verse to the air should remember this. For the record, Stockport County fans once sang a version of the Sash, "The Scarf My Father Wore".

    ReplyDelete
  10. The rivalry of the old firm has, on occassions, been transversed by events. As Anthony said the "most salient" memory of a Rangers fan is "losing their lives in the Ibrox disaster" 1971. It was this disaster which, for once brought no cheering from the Celtic end of the ground. The Celtic fans were quiet and certainly not celebrating. Another incident which overcame, for a short period, the religious and, more appropriate, ideological divide between the "old firm" was the tragic accident in 1931 which resulted in the death of Celtic Keeper, Johnny Thomson after a collision with Rangers Sam English. English was never the same player again but it was a tragic accident. The Rangers players approached their supporters section with fingers to lips asking for respect and quiet. They, reportedly had no need to, the stadium was all but silent. When the Scottish FA wanted to ban the Irish Tricolour flying at Parkhead, it was reportedly Rangers who spoke in favour of retaining the flag because it added to the rivalry.

    All that said it is the Rangers fans who are guilty of anti-Catholic sectarian singing. Celtic are not reknowned for singing anti-Protestant songs, many Celtic supporters are from that denomination. Celtics greatest manager, Jock Stein was of the Protestant faith as were six (I think) of the 1967 Lisburn Lions. Stein once commented; 'if two players are on the market, one Catholic the other Protestant I will always go for the Protestant first. The Catholic will always be there tomorrow as Rangers will never sign a Catholic'. That should sum up the ingrained sectarianism embroiled in the Ibrox outfit of the time, sectarianism not present at Celtic Park.
    Greame Souness tried to change all that with the signing of Mo Johnson, a Catholic and former Celtic player. A bold move indeed and, good as Johnson was, a move resented by many behind the scenes as well as on the terraces at Ibrox. One kit man, again reportedly, refused to lay the players kit out for him because he was a Catholic! If that is not sectarian tell me what is? Again, no such problems at Celtic and when it comes to sectarianism there, even in these more enlightened times, really is no comparison between the two old firm clubs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin,

      That was true back in the 1980's but absolutely not now, there's more Catholics in the squad than Prods and the captain is one, and he's not the first either.

      Singing about the killing of "Brits" is the same to the PUL community as though the word were Protestant. There's no difference made on our part, we know the intent.

      Delete
  11. Brandon

    "....this is what a significant proportion of Rangers fans do"
    What proportion do you think?

    "...their own dingy drinking clubs" I suspect you've never been in a Rangers club. Far from dingy.

    "when do those “openly declaring a Protestant identity” do so in a respectful, restrained, and orderly way?"

    At literally every Sunday parade in the calendar. Bands must play Christian hymns only and there is to be strictly no drinking. Also at parades in the Republic. The yearly parade at Rossknowlagh is a popular cross community affair with the local RC church volunteers providing the catering. Also many country parades. There were deep divisions in the order at the open sectarianism of the Belfast brethren compared to the country brethren who live with and have mostly good cross community relations.

    The thing is I agree with you on most things. I am not a loyalist. As a committed atheist I dislike the Loyal Orders. Bands and bonfires are not my thing but many within loyalism are good people. On their hatred of the Catholic church, they have been proved right on many things, from the killing of babies, raping of boys to the corruption at the very top. They would argue they were justified to oppose catholicism in Ireland.They want to see a Protestant Ireland united under the British monarchy, so is that a "damaged identity"?

    "I cannot think of any other Scottish football teams that have a support who have rioted in Glasgow, Manchester, and elsewhere."

    Celtic for one. A search of google or Youtube will show you many examples. The drunken Green Brigade singing the Lee Rigby song in Sunderland at a pre-season friendly sparked riots. Also at The Emirates Stadium when they abused the marching band who were entertaining the crowd. The Green Brigade have rioted in many places and are despised by many "true" Celtic fans.

    You wear your contempt for the PUL community on your sleeve as is your want, but it makes you look like a sneering snob and bigot. Maybe recognising the ills in your own community before attacking your neighbours would receive a more positive response.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yet again Brandon can't quite hide his hatred though his usual word gymnastics are impressive.

    I know quite a few Old Firm fans and the adage of a 90 minute Bigot would apply to most of them. My best mate is Celtic daft from Killie and we love to rip the arse out of each other during the game, though admittedly he's had more reason to gloat the past few years than me!

    But yeah, fire away Brandon because you are fooling no one on TPQ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steve R

    From his latest diatribe you can see that he knows little about Scottish footy/Rangers or the Loyal Orders, yet he sits on his high horse passing judgement on both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      Yep and he would have got further had he not been so self-righteous. I've no time for the 12th, the Bands or the Orders either but to generalize the whole lot of them is beyond folly. There are many, many decent people amongst their number but he equates the actions of a tiny amount to the actions of all. Small 'u' unionist my hole.

      Delete
  14. As I see it sectarianism is a tradition amongst many Rangers fans, not so for Celtic. The disease may have krept in over recent years but it is not a tradition! How could it be? At a Celtic supporters club meeting in London I knew at least four of those present were from the Protestant denomination, could not imagine them singing songs against themselves. Very few Catholics support Rangers, but I do know of two, whereas many Prods support Celtic. I supposse thats the subtle difference🏐🏐🏐⚽⚽⚽⚽⚽🙃🙃.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin - I found it a fairly sectarian tradition in Belfast for Celtic supporters. At the outbreak of the conflict it used to be said by some of their critics that they were Celtic supporters with guns.

      Delete
    2. I wrote this ten years ago about the attitude I was familiar with towards the dead of Ibrox back in the day. The chant of 66 Orange Crush was anything but non sectarian.

      Delete
  15. Caoimhin
    "As I see it sectarianism is a tradition amongst many Rangers fans, not so for Celtic."

    Ballix. You clearly know as much about Scottish footy as thon eejit Brandon. I hear this shit all the time, nasty sectarian Rangers and pure fluffy Celtic. I can assure you that there are good and bad in both camps.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @ AM

    “If you conflate Rangers fans and the Orange Order for their similar behaviour and invite your readers to believe that it is a result of their shared loyalism, then it seems germane to raise the worse case of St Patrick's Day in South Belfast's Holy Land which cannot be explained away by loyalism.”

    Anti-social behaviour in the Holylands, of course, has nothing to do with loyalism. But said behaviour, whilst despicable, does not have an institution excusing, condoning, organising, or facilitating it. The Holyland culprits to do lay claim to the “Queen’s highway” and don’t have any politicians or paramilitaries supporting their right to do what they do. Young people, particularly young men, unfortunately engage in anti-social behaviour. Performative anti-social behaviour is, and has been, a significant element of loyalism for at least as long as Northern Ireland has been in existence. As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I believe the reason for this is an unquenchable desire of loyalism to dominate “the other.”

    “when you say a "significant number" of Rangers fans it becomes a collectivisation of the individuals into a group inviting the inference that this is how you feel the collective should be defined.”

    I couldn’t find a credible estimate for the numbers at George Square, but it is likely it was in the thousands. There are several tens of thousands of members of the Orange Order in Scotland. These numbers are not trivial. I think my description of a significant number is valid. I was careful to differentiate between “Protestant identity” and “Protestant faith” with these words: “It is important to categorise accurately. Those of the Protestant faith, who attend Protestant churches, worship their God, and feel no need to act out in public a la George Sq or the Marching Season.”

    Peter has described Protestants attending church services, as I thought someone would. Because, of course, many do. As I said in my original comment, loyalists are not ideological theocrats: they’re basically anti-Catholic.

    “In terms of fans misbehaving, for years we have had English football hooliganism taking on the character of a global brand.”

    I don’t think it is coincidence that the “Quintessentially British” Rangers FC has a hooligan tendency reminiscent of that seen perpetrated by English fans. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that Scottish fans behaviour is perceived as diametrically opposed to the worst of English fans.

    “Nor do I believe that unionists who bring up the behaviour of the Catholic Church when the Orange Order is mentioned always do so to deflect. Peter has as much time for the Orange Order as you have. I think what they are doing is asking the legitimate observation - if the Church escapes your wrath simply because it is not a manifestation of loyalism, it is loyalism, not abuse, you are primarily concerned with.”

    I have nothing more than passing knowledge of abuse perpetrated by the Catholic church. I know roughly as much about the Catholic church as I do about the Church of Ireland. I am not a Catholic. Stevie and/or Peter accused me of defending the Catholic church. I completely accept that they believe I was – but I wasn’t, and wouldn’t. I am not saying Protestant bad: Catholic good. I am writing about what I believe are the motivating forces behind loyalism.

    “When you refer to the wholesale terrorism against a civilian population, your unionist detractors will question your opposition to terrorism against a civilian population if from their perspective they detect a palpable silence when it is the terrorism of the IRA against the Protestant community.”

    I actually tried to research and write about CNR sectarian murderers, but simply couldn’t find enough information to write anything substantial. In my previous pieces I referred to the sectarian murder of Protestants by Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - What institution is "excusing, condoning, organising, or facilitating" what the Rangers fans did at George's Square?

      I have been made aware of none.

      The Holyland students block the roads, play hurley on them into the small hours. The Orange marches down the Ormeau Road caused hassle and were unwanted but so too are the Holy Land escapades. There has been much more grief caused in that community in recent years on St Patrick's Day than on the 12th.
      I don't think your claim to having more than a passing knowledge of Church abuse will cut the mustard with your detractors who already allege you have less than a passing knowledge of Rangers fans. Church abuse of children is much more pronounced than the behaviour of Rangers fans. That does not mean you should focus on it before commenting on Rangers, but to claim only a passing knowledge seems a weak response, particularly when coupled with your professed inability to discover enough detail about sectarian killings of Protestants by the IRA.
      I don't subscribe to this notion that loyalism is about a supremacist need to dominate Catholics. Elements of it, yes but I think that is a strain you will find more in the DUP than within loyalism, a large part of it religiously motivated. Certainly, many urban loyalists have no time for the pastors and their preaching.
      I have engaged with loyalists for years, working on the editorial board of a magazine with them, been in their homes and offices, had them in my own, hit the beer with them, debated endlessly with them, been at numerous conferences with them, went into the heart of a loyalist estate to talk to them about trying to stop interface clashes, have sought to encourage them to write more, been at a UVF funeral in the heart of Carrick - I don't experience that hatred of Catholics or an urge to dominate. I see a strong opposition to what I believe in but that is reciprocated from me. I think loyalism is essentially community driven rather than supremacist driven.

      Delete
  17. @ Peter

    “Bands and bonfires are not my thing but many within loyalism are good people.”
    “On their hatred of the Catholic church, they have been proved right on many things, from the killing of babies, raping of boys to the corruption at the very top. They would argue they were justified to oppose catholicism in Ireland.”

    As I have pointed out, most loyalists did not oppose Catholicism on theocratic grounds, and the “hatred” you speak of predated the long overdue exposes of abuse within the Catholic church. Child abuse is not unique to the Catholic church, and does not in any way justify the wild, enduring, systemic and institutional sectarianism of loyalism. As the child abuse inquiries throughout the UK are demonstrating, few institutions emerge unsullied. To link loyalist sectarianism with child abuse in Catholic churches is squalid, and quite desperate.

    “Celtic for one. A search of google or Youtube will show you many examples. The drunken Green Brigade singing the Lee Rigby song in Sunderland at a pre-season friendly sparked riots.”

    I just did this. Do you believe that Sunderland was of a similar scale to Manchester, or George Square? Do you believe that the absolute vermin singing about Lee Rigby were matched in numbers by those singing Billy Boys at Rangers matches?

    “You wear your contempt for the PUL community on your sleeve as is your want, but it makes you look like a sneering snob and bigot.”

    Remove the P, and the U from that, please. I am open about how I feel about loyalism. I am uninterested in a person’s religion, and I’m a small u unionist.

    @ Stevie R

    “Yet again Brandon can't quite hide his hatred though his usual word gymnastics are impressive.”

    My invitation for you to quote the hateful comments you allege remains open.

    I’ll leave you with some words from Professor Peter Shirlow, taken from a book about Holy Cross (which you should, but won’t, read):

    “It is not good enough to say the protesters were blood-thirsty, psychopathic maniacs, driven by sectarianism. They have lost any form of coherent leadership and have been left in a vacuum. There is a supremacist notion of Protestants as an elite and Catholics as filth. If they are scum, it doesn’t matter if you are abusing their children. You are reminding yourself and others around you what they are.”

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brandon,

    "I’ll leave you with some words from Professor Peter Shirlow, taken from a book about Holy Cross (which you should, but won’t, read):

    “It is not good enough to say the protesters were blood-thirsty, psychopathic maniacs, driven by sectarianism. They have lost any form of coherent leadership and have been left in a vacuum. There is a supremacist notion of Protestants as an elite and Catholics as filth. If they are scum, it doesn’t matter if you are abusing their children. You are reminding yourself and others around you what they are.”

    If it was about the kids and supremacy why were they left alone from the 1960's?

    You can't answer that because it shows the bullshit line you are pushing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I actually tried to research and write about CNR sectarian murderers, but simply couldn’t find enough information to write anything substantial. "

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brandon

    "I actually tried to research and write about CNR sectarian murderers, but simply couldn’t find enough information to write anything substantial."

    There were the Kingsmill, Tullyvallen and the Bayardo Bar massacres in the mid 1970s during the Provos' explicitly sectarian phase for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brandon

    Your knowledge of your subject matter is clearly lacking. Celtic have a long history of drunken thuggery. In the 80s and 90s it was the Celtic Soccer Crew, now it is the Green Brigade. The most famous hooligan firm of the 80s and 90s was the Capital City Service, who were Hibs fans. I remember tales of their exploits against Aberdeen and Celtic firms in particular. Now it is the Green Brigade that go to away games looking for trouble and singing sectarian songs. They famously rioted in Sweden, Amsterdam and Brentford amongst others. I found this quote in the My London online newspaper after the Brentford game - "Problems had been reported as early as 8.30am as coach-loads of Celtic fans arrived for the match showing visible signs of already being drunk and out of control...The atmosphere turned really ugly at the end of the match as despite the home club having paid to bring in extra policing hundreds of Celtic fans still managed to get over the barriers and onto the grass." Yet according to you Rangers have a problem with drunken thuggery but not Celtic? You are wilfully ignorant of the facts.

    "To link loyalist sectarianism with child abuse in Catholic churches is squalid, and quite desperate."

    I didn't. What is desperate is watching you thrashing around. The sectarian hatred in these isles goes back centuries. In this part of Ireland we had internecine hatred between RCs, Presbyterians and Anglicans since the Plantation. The Loyal Orders wanted to rid Ireland of Popery, many of their accusations were proved to be correct. All institutions that have access to children have a kiddie-fiddler problem but the Catholic Church covered it up right from the top, the so-called "Infallible Bride of Christ". There is no excuse for the sectarianism in the Loyal Orders but they believe deeply that the Catholic Church is satanic and point to the actions of the church. For me it is all nonsense, they want to replace popery with some other sky daddy ballix. Like with Scottish footy you seem to know little of the subject you want to comment on from your high horse.

    "I actually tried to research and write about CNR sectarian murderers, but simply couldn’t find enough information to write anything substantial."

    Hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Peter

      This is what I said: "I cannot think of any other Scottish football teams that have a support who have rioted in Glasgow, Manchester, and elsewhere. I am open to be corrected on that."

      I am indeed happy to be corrected. I am also well acquainted with individuals associated with the CCS. AM made the point that an ideological lens shapes what we see - when I see Union Jack waving drunks singing Billy Boys (or Rule Brittania), I see loyalist supremacist thugs. I have prejudices, as we all do - I theorise that loyalism requires shows of strength that are often criminally anti-social. I don't think I am wrong in that.
      I think that George Square, and Orange Disorder, fit within that theoretical framework.

      People the world over believe that theirs is the correct and righteous God, and that The Others are less than. The raw bigotry and supremacism is often couched in theocratic terms, but Ulster Loyalism is the fusion of politics and religion. I believe that performative acts of supremacy define loyalism. You may believe otherwise, but your theory that the Catholic church was in and of itself causal is weak.

      Why don't you try to write a piece about CNR murderers yourself? When I write articles here, I think about what I want to say, have a look to see if it's been done before, ensure I have enough sources to offer justification, and then send it to AM.

      If it's so easy to write about CNR sectarian murderers, then I challenge you to do so. I mean this sincerely, and I'd be happy to share with you how far I got with it. Listing a series of events is easy - getting deeper isn't. Some of the research I did led me to identify one of the probable participants in Darkley, for example. But the trail basically stopped there - and the rationale for the attack, given by Dominic McGlinchey alongside a fairly strong condemnation ("entirely innocent Hillbilly folk), was all I had to go on, and it read like typical sectarian justification. I have no interest in simply repeating others. I also found an interview with one of the Darkley widows, which was absolutely heartbreaking. It's yours if you want to do something with it.

      Delete
  22. @ Barry Gilheany

    Yes, events such as those are well known. I was trying to find sources that delved into the personalities and circumstances involved in sectarian murders of Protestants. There is scant material, not least because of a reticence on behalf of Republicans involved to discuss such things.

    To give a few examples, the knife murders of two totally innocent Protestants in Highfield during the hunger strikes, and the callous murder of Karen McKeown in 1982 - not much exists in the public domain. I had some information on the murder of Samuel Llewellyn, but nowhere near enough to be able to contextualise.

    @ Stevie R

    "If it was about the kids and supremacy why were they left alone from the 1960's?"

    You are labouring under the misapprehension that this is some sort of "gotcha" - it is the opposite. When I gave examples of loyalists targeting children, you deigned that they weren't relevant. It was about the schoolgirls, because it was the schoolgirls who had urine, spit, rocks, and (just found this out) pornographic images thrown at them. Loyalists did that.

    I haven't finished the book yet, but thus far, there is no mention of the murder of Trevor Kells. And the "children" Peter described as being knocked off a ladder, was in fact a man - the circumstances surrounding the ladder event are disputed, but it is acknowledged by all that it was a man, not "children."

    Myths take hold in disputed territories. The sensible thing to do is to challenge them, not become emotionally attached to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon
      I was told that 2 young teenagers (children) were putting up flags, one up a ladder the other holding the ladder. The Belfast Telegraph reported the incident saying that a "young person" was knocked off a ladder. The Guardian reports that a source described the injured party as "wee fellas", yet you say it is "acknowledged by all that it was a man". Can you list your sources?

      Delete
    2. @ Peter

      Yes, Holy Cross: The Untold Story, by Anne Cadwaller. Chapter: The Man and the Ladder.

      The man in question was Jim McLean, who was interviewed for the book, and acknowledges "being close to" the UDA's C Company.

      McLean's age isn't given. He is referred to as "young" but also as an adult. A woman prominent in the "protest" said she saw a car hitting the ladder, forcing him to jump off, and noted that he didn't appear "seriously hurt."

      McLean claim he was putting the flags up with "two sixteen year olds" but the only injury from the ladder incident were sustained by McLean.

      What follows is disputed, but there was quite serious fighting.

      Delete
  23. @ AM – whilst no organisations that I am aware of are ‘"excusing, condoning, organising, or facilitating" what the Rangers fans did at George's Square”’ – many do just that with loyalist disorder during the marching season.

    “I don't think your claim to having more than a passing knowledge of Church abuse will cut the mustard with your detractors who already allege you have less than a passing knowledge of Rangers fans.”

    I have significant and detailed knowledge of abuse of children in different institutions in Scotland, notably care homes, approved schools and the openly racist policies of children being sent to Canada and Australia. My information on the Catholic church comes from media reports. I don’t discuss Kincora, either, when I talk about loyalism. I simply don’t see the relevance. I am also sensitive to the distasteful practise of some to use child abuse to score political, sectarian, or football rivalry points. Politicians in Scotland have written of this.

    Regarding religions, I don’t take a hardline against believers. Belief can be a force for good, and some clergy have been heroic. It is a complex picture. I have been uncomfortable with some of TPQ’s “morning thoughts” as I have felt they played to racial and religious stereotypes, for example.

    “… inability to discover enough detail about sectarian killings of Protestants by the IRA.”

    My wording on this was clumsy. I could list sectarian atrocities by the IRA, and probably add more detail than most, but I don’t think it would be a particularly original piece of work. I have written about sectarian torture and murder of Protestants by those within the CNR community – indeed, you challenged my assertion that dozens of sectarian murders of Protestants by Catholics took place in 1972 in a comment under one of my articles. I don’t and have never shied away from this subject.

    “I don't subscribe to this notion that loyalism is about a supremacist need to dominate Catholics. Elements of it, yes but I think that is a strain you will find more in the DUP than within loyalism, a large part of it religiously motivated. Certainly, many urban loyalists have no time for the pastors and their preaching.”

    Unfortunately, the DUP is returned to political power time and again, by loyalists. The Orange Order is widely supported. These are two powerful entities, and possessed of extreme animus against Catholics/nationalists. Reforming entities within loyalism wither – they never attract enough traction.

    I was at a talk given by Aaron Edwards once, and heard for the first time the term “rotten Prods” – many individuals have challenged loyalist bigotry, as have some organisations. Loyalism is a cold, sometimes lethally hostile, house for them. My wife’s grandfather (a Protestant minister) was intimidated out of the North by loyalists.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Brandon -

    many do just that with loyalist disorder during the marching season.

    That falls someway short of being a contributing factor at play in George's Square.

    I don't doubt your detailed knowledge of institutional abuse in Scotland. That probably makes me less inclined more so than your unionist detractors to be persuaded by your claim to have only passing knowledge of the Catholic Church activity in the field. Media is a great source of information if filtered sufficiently.

    Morning Thoughts are there to be witty. They make no concession to woke sensitivity but at the same time make no concession to racism. Religious stereotypes, most probably but that is part of the wit behind them. They are not meant to be serious commentary - just memes people send in.

    I think your wording shortchanged yourself. I don't think for a second you have any time for the killing of Protestants.

    The section of loyalism that returns the DUP to power is significantly less than the section of unionism that does. SF secures power for the DUP in a way that loyalism could never hope to. Just as everybody who voted SF during the armed struggle did not do so because they endorsed a homicidal ideology, the DUP gets its vote for a host of reasons. There is more about Unionism that appears supremacist to me than loyalism.

    Loyalism can be very virulent but some of the more progressive thinking within unionism came out of loyalism. It is a coat of many colours. I think much of it mirrors republican activism in that at its heart is this defenderist core rather than a supremacist ideological instinct. Gareth Mulvenna has been good in bringing this to the fore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That falls someway short of being a contributing factor at play in George's Square."

      I suspect that the people behind the disorder in George Square related to the "statues" are the same people that were there for the victory celebration, and I am quite sure that they are present for disorder during the marching season.

      I may be wrong of course, or perhaps conflating too widely, but I don't think that I am.

      "There is more about Unionism that appears supremacist to me than loyalism."

      I think this is a very interesting statement, and one that could be unpacked at length. Someone once said a loyalist is a "unionist with a council house." I don't think that's the case. My take on loyalism is that it is more attached to anti-Irishness/Catholicism than it is to an economic and political allegiance with the UK.

      It may well be that my definition of a loyalist differs from others. This may be why I'm being accused of "hatred" and "bitterness." There are many decent Orangemen: but their organisation is anti-Catholic. That's loyalism to me.

      "I think much of it mirrors republican activism in that at its heart is this defenderist core rather than a supremacist ideological instinct. Gareth Mulvenna has been good in bringing this to the fore."

      Gareth Mulvenna (and Balaclava Street) and doing vital work, and in their own ways have changed my mind about republican and loyalist paramilitaries.

      There exists within loyalism sectarianism that "dehumanised members of the nationalist community and reduced them to the status of scapegoats (PUP Principles document)." I think that structures and mythology existed since the formation of NI (and probably beforehand) that allowed for that dehumanisation to take lethal form, easily, though of course the IRA's campaign provided a catalyst.

      I think that a myth is being created at the moment within loyalism that somehow nationalists/Dublin/the EU were responsible for the protocol. Much sabre-rattling is going on. Little demagogues are stoking loyalists up, but mercifully the violence has thus far been lowkey.

      Much of the rioting has been fairly mindless, almost recreational. But rhetoric is being ratcheted up, and if loyalists turn to murder, it will be politically uninvolved nationalists who die, not anyone remotely related to the protocol.




      Delete
  25. Suspicion in this circumstance as to who might have been there simply becomes a facile licence to cast aspersions. You might be right but in the absence of any supporting evidence it must remain a weak assumption and resonates of the "lazy" approach that you feel Peter brings to his own view. I think to make the harsh (even if accurate and not unduly harsh) evaluation that you do, it needs to be evidence driven. Are these people an institution or working at the behest of an institution? Applying Occams razor that the simplest explanation is usually the right one it seems easier to think that the crowd were Rangers supporters with a rush of the blood to the head because their side won the title rather than having their strings pulled by the shady institution.

    I find loyalism to be less bigoted than unionism as manifested in the DUP. There was once a reference to Terence O'Neill as being an educated bigot.

    I think there clearly has been a dehumanisation of nationalists and Catholics by loyalism. Jim Prior referred to the type of killings loyalism carried out - that there was a viciousness to them that republicanism lacked. Yet, in the case of the Shankill Butchers they often used their violence against Protestants. Republicanism too was not without its psychopaths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Did the ideology of loyalism allow the Holy Cross or did a power centre within loyalism allow it to be sustained? I think a lot of loyalist opinion was embarrassed by the lot of it. I was surprised a while back at how Peter and Steve could not see it for what it was - a a hate fueled attack on children that no context mitigated."

      As I said before, my lot fell into the trap but there is,was and never can be an excuse for it.

      Delete
  26. "Applying Occams razor that the simplest explanation is usually the right one it seems easier to think that the crowd were Rangers supporters with a rush of the blood to the head because their side won the title rather than having their strings pulled by the shady institution."

    I'll accept that my theory can as easily be disproved as proved. Going back to Sandy's article, and your comment about woke snobbishness around football fans, I actually do think that if a team other than Rangers had behaved in a similar way, whilst it would have still be condemned roundly, the condemnation might not have been as contemptuous. I include myself in this, of course. Could it be that more and more, Rangers fans, and loyalists more generally, are out of step with the rest of the population, and the regressive, jingoistic flavour of their antics are simply repellent?

    Sandy is right: most people were indulgent of the behaviour of Hibs fans after their stunning success in 2016. Rangers weren't, however: they released a "statement" which seriously left me wondering if someone had hacked into their social media accounts.

    "Jim Prior referred to the type of killings loyalism carried out - that there was a viciousness to them that republicanism lacked."

    Brian Nelson recounted in his diaries the sadistic enjoyment some UDA men took in their terrorism. Willie Frazer is quoted in Susan McKay's excellent book Northern Protestants: On Shifting Ground that he didn't believe the local UVF could have inflicted the lethal torture and mutilation of Andrew Robb and David McIlwaine because "there's none of the local boys would be capable of that." He then clarified "to Protestants, anyway."

    Loyalism as an ideology, and its paramilitaries by their loose structures, give far greater outlets and opportunities for sadists, bigots and criminals. I have no wish to revisit the Holy Cross debate, but I can't think of many other ideologies that would allow behaviour like that to continue for months, in public. And I cannot think of many ideologies that would not suffer in any tangible political way having behaved like that. I feel that the participants in that behaviour, and their wider community, will suffer on a wider psychological level because of what they did, but politically: not in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with a theory as easily disproved as proved is that it too easily draws flak if it is hyper-critical but unprovable. And often the acidity that that comes to characterise the ensuing discussion can throw up more heat than light. I think this discussion has managed for the most part to escape that and has been informative.

      I love the memes that wind the Rangers fans up because I find them so witty. But as an avid soccer fan with an emotional attachment to the Hillsborough 96, I have an instinctive sympathy with the Rangers fans, always seeing them as the crushed of Ibrox (particularly on the 50th anniversary of their deaths when TPQ featured a tribute in their memory) rather than the raving bigots you see. I have seen how the fans of Liverpool were portrayed in the most negative and pejorative manner so I am wary of fans being essentialised like that.

      I don't know if loyalism as an ideology encourages sadism exclusively. My experience of sadists was in the H Blocks. There are blanket men who speak of the day in day out brutality in the early days of the protest: the only respite they got was when they returned to the cell the loyalist prisoners had left chocolate or tobacco beneath their pillow. That was unionist and state sponsored sadism.

      How many young people had their limbs shattered by loyalists with baseball bats? In terms of sadistic killings few come worse than that of Paul Quinn.

      I think much of what you say about loyalism can be stood up but I think it unwise to generalise from a particular strain and then to restrict that generalisation to one group.

      Did the ideology of loyalism allow the Holy Cross or did a power centre within loyalism allow it to be sustained? I think a lot of loyalist opinion was embarrassed by the lot of it. I was surprised a while back at how Peter and Steve could not see it for what it was - a a hate fueled attack on children that no context mitigated. The rest of us might be cateful hunts when the blood boils but children are the innocents in all conflicts.
      The way loyalists organisations function certainly allows for the type of activity you flag up but I am wondering what is essentially ideological about it.

      Delete
  27. I think it's time for a VAR check.......(isn't that how modern footy disputes are sorted today?).

    I lived in Birmingham for a few years and the hatred some Birmingham fans have for everything Villa (and vice versa), is up there with Cetlic/Rangers. I met a few 'Zulu's' in Brum and worked with a couple of hard core Villa fans there is no love between them. And the only people who are laughing are the players. They make more in a week/month than most of the working class on the terraces hurling abuse at each other, earn in a year (life time?)...

    Peter,
    The other week on TPQ when you played the man and not the ball and called Brandon " a nasty wee shit" and " a wee dick", my first thoughts went back to what you said happened on one of your first patrols when you were in the UDR....(I can go into the vortex and link it) basically you stood back while 'nasty wee shits' from your patrol beat up a young man , who by your words, posed a threat to no one at the time. They (members of your patrol) came across as 'nasty wee shits and wee dicks '. You came across as a coward for keeping your mouth shut and doing noting. Next time you try throwing insults at anyone, sometimes it's good to lock in the mirror first.

    Stevie R,....
    Why do you want to make yourself sound as if your are big 'L' loyalist? Truth is you are what Brandon call's himself ..... a small 'u' Unionist, who today lives on an island in the South Pacific and refers to the PM of Victoria as 'your PM'. Are you an Aussie citizen aswell?

    Why do you (and Peter) keep talking about Holy Cross? My sisters and nieces went to the school. Do either of you have family or relatives who have ever attended HCG? You Stevie keep saying why didn't Holy Cross get targeted before 2001. What I seen for my own eyes while attending St Gabes between 1979-85 was young school girls being escorted across the football pitches from time to time, then flanked by the RUC/State forces down the Crumlin Road because big 'L' loyalist's had left what SLF sang about in Suspect Device, at the school gates (Holy Cross Girls backed on to St Gabes), Anytime you claim Holy Cross Girls wasn't a target until 2001 falls on deaf ears....I don't need to read books about Holy Cross 2001. I can pick up a phone and ask a younger brother what his daughter (my niece) experienced while simply trying to go to school and get and education. He will say "Frankie, all respect, I don't want to think about it"........

    Barry,
    Your comment about Kingsmill and the 'Provos' explicitly sectarian phase for starters.', It re-enforces my belief that you are more British than Finchley. You don't seem to have the same 'venom' or anger in your words when you mention big 'L' loyalist violence or British state forces covering up and participating in sectarian murders....

    Did the Provisionals do anything to you or your family to make you dislike them? Personally, they done me or my immediate family no harm and they let me live my life, never held a gun to me (state forces use to while being frisked,)....

    A few weeks back Padraic Mac Coitir wrote a very poignant piece about his late friend and former comrade Raymond McCreesh. And in your only comment on the piece, you made an allegation against Raymond McCreesh being involved in a war crime (Kingsmill), with out any proofs but because of your (hatred is probably to strong a word) dislike for everything Provisional IRA/Republican, you feel free to slur a dead PIRA volunteer, who died on hunger strike for his beliefs? If Raymond McCreesh was alive today, assuming his finger prints are on a rifle used in Kingsmill (war crime)...Would you still make the same allegation?

    Why are you are very quick of the mark to ask Quillers to source things....(even though you don't open the links and at least skim)....

    That's my VAR check over.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A few weeks back Padraic Mac Coitir wrote a very poignant piece about his late friend and former comrade Raymond McCreesh. And in your only comment on the piece, you made an allegation against Raymond McCreesh being involved in a war crime (Kingsmill), with out any proofs "

      Apart from being caught with one of the guns used in it.

      https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/memorial-event-for-ira-man-mccreesh-angers-kingsmill-relative-36910735.html

      Delete
    2. Stevie R,....
      Why do you want to make yourself sound as if your are big 'L' loyalist?
      I know what I am
      Truth is you are what Brandon call's himself ..... a small 'u' Unionist,
      Nope

      who today lives on an island in the South Pacific and refers to the PM of Victoria as 'your PM'. Are you an Aussie citizen aswell?

      Yes.

      Why do you (and Peter) keep talking about Holy Cross?
      I don’t, I was responding to Brandon trying to bring it up as an example when the truth is far more complex than simply big bad prods attacking wee girls.

      My sisters and nieces went to the school. Do either of you have family or relatives who have ever attended HCG? You Stevie keep saying why didn't Holy Cross get targeted before 2001. What I seen for my own eyes while attending St Gabes between 1979-85 was young school girls being escorted across the football pitches from time to time, then flanked by the RUC/State forces down the Crumlin Road because big 'L' loyalist's had left what SLF sang about in Suspect Device, at the school gates (Holy Cross Girls backed on to St Gabes), Anytime you claim Holy Cross Girls wasn't a target until 2001 falls on deaf ears....I don't need to read books about Holy Cross 2001. I can pick up a phone and ask a younger brother what his daughter (my niece) experienced while simply trying to go to school and get and education. He will say "Frankie, all respect, I don't want to think about it"........

      That’s hardly even remotely the same thing. Nice with the Stiff Little Fingers reference, they were here a couple of years ago too!

      Delete
  28. @ AM

    The prison guards example is interesting. The Stanford Prison Experiment will be familiar to most writing here. I think positions of power like prison guards, police officers, soldiers etc can create conditions where a set of people "other" another set of people, and abuse them.

    Loyalism, I think, can be seen in a prism not too different to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Loyalism isn't a particularly coherent ideology: loyal to a crown which exists as an abstract, professed loyalty to a British Govt which clearly doesn't want said loyalty, and which, with stunning dissonance, loyalists will defy and even fight with.

    Loyalism, to me, means strident anti-Catholicism, and anti-Irishness, evidenced by performative acts (Orange Marches), and justified by mythologies, which persist to this day. Holy Cross is simply an extreme example of "othering" - and loyalists Other constantly. I don't think it's a massive ideological jump from marching, unwanted, down a Catholic street, to denying a man a job because of his perceived Catholicism/Irishness, to hurling urine and rocks at schoolgirls. All are the actions of people who see themselves as distinct and superior. Of course, such claims to superiority are laughable, but supremacy will always attracts social outcasts and dysfunctional personalities.

    I think that's what happened at Holy Cross. The absolute dregs of lumpen loyalism acted out, and the structures of loyalism excused them.

    We are seeing, right now, loyalism creating an enemy, and attempting to dominate.

    Loyalists won a pyric victory in 1974. Their protests against the Ango-Irish Agreement failed. Their protests at Drumcree failed. Their assault on the schoolgirls of Holy Cross failed. Their "flag" protests failed. We shall see how the protocol protests go.

    With the possible example of the "flag" protests, every other protest I listed undertaken by loyalists has resulted in murdered civilians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe Stanford works here. This was not about control outside of a political and ideological context. The brutality was not rooted in a power disparity between prison staff and prisoners. It was strategic and politically loaded and driven by a DUP type hatred of the republican prisoners. Loyalist prisoners could have joined in and jumped on the hate bandwagon but didn't. From what I was told by people on those wings at that time the loyalists showed a degree of empathy towards the republican prisoners.
      When the no wash started and the only other prisoners to enter the wings were orderlies who did not reside on the wing, there were a few orderlies who were thugs and joined with the screws against the protesting prisoners. The worst were from nationalist areas. For the most part loyalists refused to work as orderlies in the protest blocks.
      Loyalism is so disparate that it seems less than useful to characterise it in any singular way. At root it wants to remain within the UK not because it loathes Catholics but because it loathes obligatory Irish nationalism. Having been at so many conferences and events attended by loyalists, I never found them anywhere near as toxic as the DUP who were at the same events. I spoke to a few DUP but the loyalists always had a lot more going for them.
      The hated of the Irishness you refer to is for loyalists mirrored in a hatred of Britishness from republicans. The performative marches are to them mirrored in the performative marches of republicans. How is the Protestant community going to respond to Thomas Begley being honoured in a republican setting? And I am not having a go at Thomas Begley - I carried his coffin. Lots of things you ascribe to loyalism can be seen within the republican culture as well.

      Every social or cultural movement has its myths and loyalism would be no different. Just like religions have creationist myths and nations have foundational myths.
      I think it is a huge ideological jump from wanting to march where you are not wanted to doing what was done at Holy Cross. Both are on the wrong side but there remains a huge gap between them. We only have to add a new step and suddenly the leap from being a Rangers supporter to throwing urine over babies is not a huge ideological leap. This is where the logic of demonising leads us.

      What we see right now is unionism seeking to dominate by floating an abandonment of the 50+1 mechanism for a border poll. You keep characterising loyalism as the supremacist body when it seems to me that political unionism wears the cap better.
      Unionism, not just loyalism, won a victory in 1974 and it was not pyrrhic. It effectively kept an Irish dimension of the agenda for a full 11 years. It so reinforced the unionists veto that there was no Brit will to get out post 75 even though you erroneously stated in an earlier thread that there was a change of opinion in Brit circles in the 80s. Almost 50 years on from 1974 we have a failed IRA campaign to end partition and we still have partition.
      How many civilians have loyalists killed since the GFA compared to civilians killed by republicans?

      Delete
  29. Frankie

    Your comment about Kingsmill and the 'Provos' explicitly sectarian phase for starters.', It re-enforces my belief that you are more British than Finchley. You don't seem to have the same 'venom' or anger in your words when you mention big 'L' loyalist violence or British state forces covering up and participating in sectarian murders....

    Did the Provisionals do anything to you or your family to make you dislike them? Personally, they done me or my immediate family no harm and they let me live my life, never held a gun to me (state forces use to while being frisked,)....

    All of my life I have been opposed to violence whether perpetrated by Nationalist or Loyalist armed groups or state forces. Search back through TPQ comment threads and you will find strident condemnation by of the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy massacres; of the lack of remorse shown by Billy Hutchinson for the murder of two Catholics that he was convicted of and to the 'return of serve' comments by one TPQ commenter in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

    It is never good to base one's political philosophy and ethical standards purely on lived experience. But having said that and in response to your question, I was on three occasions beaten up by Provisional supporters and frequently verbally abused for working for the SDLP at election times; in other words for facilitating the democratic process. But that is not the reason for my animosity towards Republican violence; there are 2,000 + better reasons.

    Loyalists, RUC, British army, Islamist terrorists, BNP and EDL never harmed me. Does that mean I give them a free pass? Certainly not.

    it is a matter of public record that Raymond McCreesh's fingerprints were found on an Armalite rifle connected to the Kingsmill massacre. As AM explained to me that is not definitive proof of his involvement.

    Your 'more British than Finchley" cheap, chauvinistic slur is really wearing thin; all the more so because of your support of Brexit and cheerleading for UKIP and reactionary and sexist Tory MPs like Philip Davies. In fact your comment is fcuking out of order.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Can I have a VAR check on 'The Stanford Prison Experiment' that academia hold up as a classic example of mans inhumanity to man , power, control........Hasn't that been exposed as a fraud?

    Famed Stanford Prison Experiment was a fraud, scientist says (New York Post)

    Blum’s expose — based on previously unpublished recordings of Zimbardo, a Stanford psychology professor, and interviews with the participants — offers evidence that the “guards” were coached to be cruel.

    One of the men who acted as an inmate told Blum he enjoyed the experiment because he knew the guards couldn’t actually hurt him.

    “There were no repercussions. We knew [the guards] couldn’t hurt us, they couldn’t hit us. They were white college kids just like us, so it was a very safe situation,” said Douglas Korpi, who was 22-years-old when he acted as an inmate in the study.

    In a recorded clip of the experiment, Korpi was seen locked in a dark closet, naked under a thin white smock, screaming “I’m burning up inside!” and kicking furiously at the door.

    But the Berkeley grad now admits the whole thing was fake.

    “Anybody who is a clinician would know that I was faking,” he said. “If you listen to the tape, it’s not subtle. I’m not that good at acting. I mean, I think I do a fairly good job, but I’m more hysterical than psychotic.”

    One guards told Blum he pretended to be a sadist for kicks.

    “I took it as a kind of improv exercise,” Dave Eshelman said. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do… I’d never been to the South but I used a southern accent.”..............................

    The Lifespan of a Lie ( Ben Blum Jun 7, 2018 ·29 min read)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Frankie
    You have thrown that post up a few times without linking it. Link it so that context can be given.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Peter/Stevie.......

    Peter, I have noticed anytime I have made the claim, you have never once denied what I said. The context is easy to understand, you stood back and watched members of your patrol beat up an innocent young man. I have kept what you said in context. I will go into the vortex of TPQ and when I find your quote/comment, I will link it here and let the Quillers decide about context.......

    Stevie, You have on a few occasions called yourself a small 'U; Unionist. A short while back I asked you to read a Cait Trainor piece on TPQ, and you refused to open the link. Remember? If you had, you'd seen what you said. Once I re-locate Peter's comments, I'll link yours at the same time (I have your comment bookmarked)...Anytime you mention that HCG wasn't a target until 2001, it is bullshit. I would watch pupils from HCG being escorted from their school because big 'L' loyalism left a suspect device at the gates when I attended St Gabes. At times it appears you make excuses and try to justify what happened at HCG. A subject you know next to nothing about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People can change frankie. And I know plenty of people who live in Glenbryn so I'm getting it from the horses mouth, you can fling the one 'suspect device' as evidence bollocks over the pond as far as I'm concerned too.

      Delete
  33. Stevie...
    How much of even a small 'L; loyalist are you? A few weeks back you said your loyalty lies with the people from the Sandy Row, Donegal Pass etc.. How do you show your loyalty to them? What real support or difference to their lives have you made? Once you've eaten your bowl of kangaroo stew , do you have a one man protest outside the Irish Embassy and shout "No Surrender and ditch the NI Protocol". We know you've spent the best part of 20/30 yrs away from the island (with one or two short visits home spent getting drunk on lattes), how loyal are you in real terms to the loyalist's who live in the Village, East Belfast, Ballysillan....?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I prefer possum pie frankie, doesn't make my arse bounce as much on the way out and my kids would never forgive me for eating skippy!

      But in regards to your point, I guess that's true, and I would be a lot more active in my community if I was back home. Not much I can do here, though I do critique the duppers as much as I can and can see me getting done with Irish politics once and for all if they don't sort themselves out, and see the potential for having the best of both worlds with the NIP. The whole thing is a clusterfu*k wrapped up in a bollocks sandwich.

      Delete
  34. Barry,
    I ask you, what did the Provisionals ever do to you, and when everything is stripped back to fact and without spin, the answer is 'nothing'. You said " I was on three occasions beaten up by Provisional supporters", reads to me like they were Shinners (not the Provisionals). I have no problem is calling them nasty wee shits and dicks. A fair fight, one on one, four against three, five against four, I've no probs with. A four/five against one, never gets my vote. If you were walking through Manchester with your Leeds scarf and 4/5 Man Utd fans beat you up, would you blame Man Utd ? And the name calling, I've been called loads in my life and it's water of a ducks back when someone hurls abuse etc. When it happens to me, I smile at them at say "I have been called worse by better people" and I get on with my life.

    "But that is not the reason for my animosity towards Republican violence; there are 2,000 + better reasons."

    I was close to the truth when I said "You don't seem to have the same 'venom' or anger in your words when you mention big 'L' loyalist violence or British state forces covering up and participating in sectarian murders" You said you've "2000+ better reasons" to be angry with. Most reliable sources (Lost lives, Sutton) put the Provisional death toll between 1,700-1,800. I'll use those figures as your reason for your animosity and I will use Freddie Scappaticci as a case point, he was responsible directly or indirectly up to 50 deaths. Those deaths are still chalked up to the PIRA, when in fact they should be transferred to the British death toll, he was a British Agent masquerading as a volunteer of the PIRA. How many more Scappaticci's (British agents carrying out a British agenda ) were there?

    It is never good to base one's political philosophy and ethical standards purely on lived experience"

    My political philosophy, it's very simple. I don't vote, I've never put myself on any electoral register. No one has inspired me to get off my arse on a Thursday and put an 'X' beside their name (no one gets my vote). I would vote in an OIOV if it said on the ballot paper "tick here if you want Westminster and Brussels to fcuk off from the Island." What have you learned from your political journey. Apart from being beaten up, had abuse hurled at you? Wikipedia tells me you can't even get yourself elected. Tells me your political philosophy isn't a great benchmark. At least The Donald's political philosophy got him elected as President of the USA.

    My ethical standards are mine. And basically Barry, I treat everyone the same and with the respect they show me. I don't factor in anyone's ethnicity when I talk to whoever. When all is done and dusted, everyone is on this rock for how long? Three score and ten? At the end of the day we all eat, sleep and shit in the same positions.

    One of your "lived experience's" you were beaten up a few times. What did you do after the first time? Did you think about going to a gym and learn how to defend yourself incase the same thing happened again, so you could take at least one down with you? it's not using violence Barry, it's called defending yourself.

    In fact your comment is fcuking out of order.

    That I think you are more British than Finchey. I do, thats where the evidence takes me. I am not going to deny that you have called out big 'L' loyalist violence or British violence, we both know you have. But not with the same animosity or venom when you mention what the Provisionals may or not have done. You do the same when you talk about Israeli state terrorism (you play soft ball and make excuses for Israel while laying the blame Hamas).You even have problems admitting that the British carried out several acts of genocide on the island.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Barry,

    all the more so because of your support of Brexit and cheerleading for UKIP and reactionary and sexist Tory MPs like Philip Davies.

    A few months ago I thought we cleared up Phil Davis. It had everything to do with men's issues (including men's mental health) and when your poster girl tried to make fun of it, I called her out. Doesn't make me a Tory supporter. In the Podesta piece when I first mention fearless Jess I linked Dr Jonna William's debating with her about the whole Trans issue. Dr William's had Jess on ropes. While fearless is one of your poster girls, I prefer mine to be more Rachel Welch.

    Brexit/UKIP....I was listening to a Republican on BBC Talkback yesterday who admitted he was rubbing his hands when the Brexit vote went the way it did. It's a head ache for Westminster and loyalism. The NI Protocol (an Irish sea border), it's great entertainment. Who are loyalists going to vent their anger at? Their elected political leaders and a British PM who lied to them? You couldn't make this stuff up. Great result though. UKIP..I agreed with Nigel when he spoke in the EU Parliament and exposed who they really are...Let's keep it real you show support for a British Union who's forces run amok on the island for centuries and also support a European Union who financially raped the Irish, causing families to lose homes, business to fail, a lot of people ended up taking their own lives due to what the European done.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Frankie

    The 2,000+ figure refers to killings carried out by ALL republicans groups: OIRA, INLA, IPLO, RIRA, CIRA and whatever other alphabet soup entity there is out there as well as PIRA.

    The Shinners and Provisionals were and are one and the same thumb.

    Nobody should be subject to violence; be it on civvy street or in prison or in schools or any institutional setting.

    I support the European Union as it is an alliance of liberal democracies set up to prevent the repetition of the two global cataclysms that took place on European soil and the horrors of genocidal nationalism and totalitarianism that also took place. In those respects, it has been successful; the EU has its problems and democratic deficits but no governmental-or intergovernmental organisation is perfect because human beings are imperfectible

    I have no political ambitions. I just enjoy writing about politics; pity I do not get paid for it.

    I support like the vast majority of people on the island of Ireland the constitutional arrangements laid out in the GFA. This does not retrospectively endorse the past and present crimes of the British state those of Scap and other agents included.

    I wonder exactly what being "British" and "Irish" means to you.

    With every post you write, I am forming the impression that you are a far-right sympathiser. Your admiration of Farage, Trump, Le Pen; your obsession with "Zionist" bankers; your open transphobia; your deliberate misinterpretation of what Jess Phillips MP said about male mental health; your promotion of Pizzagate, David Icke and plandemic conspiracy myths strongly evidences my claim.

    You ask to be treated the same way as you treat others. Your interactions with me have ranged from the patronising to the bullying to the gas lighting.

    There are quite a few contributors to the Quill who I disagree with politically but who dialogue in a respectful manner with me. This is not something I can say about you. I do not do not particularly like to share online space with far right (or far left) extremists. At least on Twitter I can solve that problem by clicking on the block button and, where necessary, the report button.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Barry - your block button is ignore.
    Frankie is being his usual Frankie self - that is his way of engaging with all of us. He might be acerbic at times but he is not abusive. Recently when you were abused by one of the Barbaras the comment was sent to Bates & Wilkes.
    Frankie is part of the furniture here, much like yourself. If you are not happy with his input you don't have to engage with him.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Barry,
    I wonder exactly what being "British" and "Irish" means to you.

    You are a gift that keeps on giving. Why not 'Irish 'and 'British'? Why put British first? I have no idea what it means to be British. I was born on the island of Ireland. I am Irish. As for being Irish and British, ask Stevie, Peter or why don't you tell TPQ what it means to you...Together they mean nothing to me.

    I have no admiration for any politician. I agree with some more than others but there is no admiration. I thought The Donald was great TV. A 70yr old man with a sun tan, giving it the YMCA at political rallies, TV gold. He got more right than you give him credit for. Le Pen, she has never been one of my poster girls, I agree with some of things she has said. This is a 6min BBC report French police accused of violence, brutality and racism. Do you honestly think Le Pens police would behave any different? I hope you listen to not only who Macron is wooing to get votes in the run up to next year but what he is saying. After the recent election results, my guess is Macron is out of a job. I can't see his banker friends bank rolling him again. The next French Presidential elections at the minute, my guess is a battle of the blondes between Valérie Pécresse and Le Pen.

    You believe I am a patronizing bullying who gas lights. Anything else you want to add? Sticks and stones break bones Barry....... in my world it's not names will never hurt me, it's whips and chains excite me. I am not 'alt' anything. I am an Irish Rockabilly from Ardoyne. Maybe you are right and I am IRA O.T.M.A.P.P..

    At least on Twitter I can solve that problem by clicking on the block button and, where necessary, the report button....

    If it makes you feel better, I will set up a Twitter account, post on your Twitter feed, just so you can press a button and report me to the Thought Police while an algorithm deletes my Twitter account. With the cancel culture ideology that you advocate, I suppose you'd be all for the renaming of Raymond mcCreesh park? After all you basically called him a war criminal with no proof.



    Barry I read read your comments, I pay attention to how you say things. And when talking about the death toll during the conflict, according to you, Republicans carried out killings while the British only carried out crimes. And the tone you use to describe Republican and British violence is very different. When talking about Republican violence it is written in anger.......

    The 2,000+ figure refers to killings carried out by ALL republicans groups:

    Yet when you mention British state violence you write for Academia.

    This does not retrospectively endorse the past and present crimes of the British state (TBC)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Barry continued.......
    You finished your sentence by saying "those of Scap and other agents included."....Take Scap and Brian Nelson, two British agents who between them are responsible directly or indirectly for upwards to 100 murders? Yet today their death tolls are chalked up to Republicans or Loyalists and not British deaths. Now add into the equation 'other agents included' and the murder's they carried out, there is easily another several hundred murders that should be chalked up to the British (not paramilitaries). And you and others have a problem getting your head around that. I don't. The British have been raping ,looting and killing Irish people for centuries. When the British was empire building they raped the island , loaded their ships with looted Irish fish, livestock, cereals and stood back done nothing while millions of Irish men, women and children died with hunger I'm with Chris Foggarty when he calls it an act of genocide.

    The Shinners and Provisionals were and are one and the same thumb.

    My understanding is the Shinners and the Provisionals are and have always been two separate organizations. I am not denying there wasn't a lot of cross pollination between the two, that the Provisionals (no pun) called the shots/set policy ...they had similar agenda's but they were not the same.

    your open transphobia; your deliberate misinterpretation of what Jess Phillips MP said about male mental health; your promotion of Pizzagate, David Icke and plandemic conspiracy myths strongly evidences my claim.

    I am no more tansphobic than Dr Joanna Williams (The year of trans tranny, TPQ). Fearless, I have not taken anything she has said out of context. We had this convo weeks ago Barry, I can link it if you want. I will refresh your memory, It had to do with me breaking the lockdown rules that you seem happy to abide by. David Icke, if you actually listened to what he says and not what you think he says, you'd discover he makes a lot of sense and like The Donald has got more right that you give him credit for. Icke wasn't afarid to call out Ted Heath as a peadophile when he was alive. Heath as a British Prime Minster sent his troops onto the streets of Belfast, Derry, South Armagh....to commit as you put it "British crimes" while he was busy raping young boys and girls with Jimmy Saville on weekends. Pizzagate, today I can link at least one victim of the Epstein/Maxwell child sex trafficking ring and Pizzagate. What you call a 'plandemic' I have always called a psy-op. If you want to gimp up, wash your hands 50 times a day and stand in line give your DNA away freely while being micro chipped. It's your body, not mine and you have a the right to what you want with yours. (TBC)......

    ReplyDelete
  40. Barry
    I have no political ambitions. I just enjoy writing about politics; pity I do not get paid for it..

    What I said was...What have you learned from your political journey. Wikipedia tells me you can't even get yourself elected.". It could simply be your name-sake, a family member with the same name as you or fake news. There was a Barry Gilheany who had political ambitions, that he would have got paid if elected, who has stood as a Labour candidate in Colchester council elections. (Essex County Standard 2016). Staying with Labour, this recent Sky News Labour poll, makes very sorry reading for the BLP. And if they lose the next by election then Stammer like Macron, will be out of a job soon.


    Part of my political philosophy is based on the writings of James Connolly. I understand his brand/style of socialism. his total distain for banks. It makes sense in the space between my ears. A quick history lesson Barry . In 1886 the Morgans, Rockefellers, and Vanderbilts and their friends joined together to form Jekyll Island Club. In 1910 they met up to conspire to set up the US Federal Reserve. And the same families today still control most of this rocks natural resources, wealth, while they enslave who ever gets in their way (includes starting World Wars). Ron Chernow, a Biographer: had this to say about The Rockefellers

    "By 1879, when Rockefeller is 40, he controls 90 percent of the oil refining in the world. Within a few years, he will control 90 percent of the marketing of oil and a third of all of the oil wells. So this very young man controls what is not only a national but an international monopoly in a commodity that is about to become the most important strategic commodity in the world economy."

    In 1897 James Connolly warned Ireland and the world what was in store if people didn't take action to stop their control of the world Socialism and Nationalism

    England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers [Bankers], through the whole array of commercial [Big Oil/Big Pharma] and individualist institutions [Technocrat's] she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs..

    An article from Spiked online called James Connolly: we only want the Earth points out very easily just how right he was and how much of a visionary he was " Connolly wasn't only interested in just a military victory over Britain but an economic one too". Is Ella Whelan right in her thinking that the ideals of an Irish Socialist Republic died when Connolly was murdered by the British in 1916...Read the piece and make your own mind up. Dixie Elliot wrote a piece called Vultures At The Feast Of Carrion and he said ......This isn't the Ireland of Pearse or Connolly. It is the Ireland of Varadkar and Martin. O'Neill and Foster. With the little parties all wanting a slice of the pie......James Corbertt a very well respected journalist, researcher and podcaster in Japan made the exact same points, almost word for word, at the same time. Forward this link to 4mins and listen for 20 seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  41. your obsession with "Zionist" bankers;

    I am not obsessed with 'Zionism'. I've simply no time for it, I don't like the agenda, what it means., there is nothing good I can say about it. My oldest daughter knows that more than anyone. Bankers, nothing but contempt for them. watch Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve from the CorberttReport and you'll start to understand that my contempt for ' Zionist Bankers' is bigger than the state of Israel.


    A while back Christopher Owen penned a piece for TPQ titled RIP Metal Ireland , in his piece he had this to say............"you have access to the internet, so why not click on the link with the music being discussed and make up your own mind instead of being put off for some weird reason.". Leave out the words 'with the music' and take his, not my advice....


    ReplyDelete