Comment on Three Shakes … and a Twist by coineanachantaighe.
Monday, October 29, 2012 at 15:22
There was no connotation other than total implausibility. There was only one form of racism in the Glasgow of the 50′s, and it had nothing to do with your skin colour.
We mustn’t get carried away with ourselves. There’s always been racism in Glasgow – it’s just that the religious bogitry was much louder or more open. Asian and (the fewer) African immigrants suffered racism – it may have not been as open and widespread as in certain English cities but it was there.
And regardless that things may have improved today it still exists. If you don’t believe me just ask any of your friends of Asian/African descent. We are quite right to focus on the bogitry aspect because it played/plays such a big part in Scottish football. But we mustn’t pretend that racism doesn’t/didn’t exist.
coineanachantaighe Also Commented
Three Shakes … and a Twist
Humble Pie says:
Monday, October 29, 2012 at 15:44
Apologies for the long post.
Absolutely no need. Worthy of being a blog post.
Only thing I might … not disagree with but perhaps, amend is that I think the Rangers story is one of the biggest Football stories ever to hit the UK not just Scotland. Yet despite Rangers being along with Celtic the only really well known Scottish club down south, it’s hardly caused a ripple, only AT showing any real interest.
Since I don’t believe too-good-to-hurry’s influence doesn’t stretch that far I can only assume that we are seen as such an unimportant part of the country it’s not worth reporting on. I’ve only seen the odd article, sometimes uninformed, usually hidden away in some corner, otherwise unreported. I consider that a bit of a disgrace and an insult.
Three Shakes … and a Twist
Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 12:49
Sevco players have a display for “Show Racism The Red Card”, WHILST their support sing about people “Going home”. Only in Scottish Football and not a peep from the commentators. Utterly disgusting.
I don’t know about the SPL though I assume they’re the same, but in the SFL this last week the thing has (unlike England) been described as “Show Racism and SECTARIANISN The Red Card”.
No, they didn’t shout the middle bit, just only way I’ve got of emphasising it. I wonder how that particular bit will go down? Probably they’re all convinced everyone else is sectarian against them because we don’t want to hear their Ulster history songs and the rest of the baggage.
BTW I expect the erudite folk I’ve noticed on here (often far more so than I) are aware the King Billy was in alliance with the Pope and James was on the side of the Pope’s enemy? (One of these things like us being on the same side as Stalin during WWII – though better add the comparison is only loose in case it sets off a religious argument).
Never quite had the nerve to bring that up with the really sore bears of my acquaintance.
Three Shakes … and a Twist
Sunday, October 28, 2012 at 09:10
Hate to be a wet blanket but it’s a waste of time saying all that. Everyone on here knows it already and the real point is McCoist knows all that very well too. He also knows the guy that he’s giving the interview to knows it very well too but also knows that guy and his newspaper are quite willing to print any misrepresentations/lies/threats he wished to make.
I’d actually recommend a copy/paste into the comments section of the article only I don’t want to encourage giving it any more ‘hits’ than it deserves (which is about zero).
Recent Comments by coineanachantaighe
JIMBODECEMBER 19, 2017 at 16:17
Thing is, some folk – in fact many – can be smart and talented in one field but quite dumb when it comes to other fields. Even university professors. It’s all about what you bother to learn about and how you apply what you learn (and it can be affected by laziness, arrogance, prejudice and so on).
These folk get the attitude that because they know a lot about one thing they have an attitude that their expertise automatically transfers into other spheres of which they know very little. Of course Lambert knows about football – about playing it and coaching, but he doesn’t know anything about what been going on in Scottish football these last couple of decades and no doubt has given no more than a very superficial effort into trying to find out.
Who Is Conning Whom?
Just had a quick browse through sheepish fan forums. Seems a general inclination to back McInnes. Also seems that statement from Rangers will have been very helpful to McInnes in getting continued backing from AFC fans.
BAD CAPT MADMANDECEMBER 6, 2017 at 01:44
While I think you may be right about this, the question is how do you prove it and who will pursue it even if some proof is found
The Football authorities will be unwilling and the thing is Rangers have always been able to “tap” people they want without using the usual under the table methods. They have the whole SMSM to do that for them.
My own feeling is while McInnes may have been a wished for target they may have already decided they can’t afford him, however the process has undermined a key opponent. An official approach (one in which apparently they were unwilling to upfront the money as required) can be seen as them justifying what they did retrospectively.
They may even believe there’s an outside chance with the SMSM help they can force Aberdeen to drop their demand for all the money upfront and that McInnes will jump ship. But their main object will already have been achieved regardless.
Who Is Conning Whom?
Could this refusal by Aberdeen be not down to annoyance at TRanger’s unsettling their manager but due to TRangers’ being unwilling to show evidence of of ability/willingness to pay the compensation due. (E.g. put all or large part of money due into 3rd party account??)
Enough is enough
@ JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:22
I must really add that while what you are saying is absolutely true your particular emphasis seems to suggest that the BBC is reliable outside of football reporting. I may be quite mistaken, if so apologies. But I think it’s worth saying here that the BBC (and other media outlets) are very much establishment biased and not just in sport.
For instance there’s a bit of a rammy just about tax evaders in the MSM but this will pass quickly and the media will move on to other things. On the other hand every week for years not only do you regularly see stuff about benefit cheats there are whole TV programs appearing about them creating the impression it is a massive problem when in fact the figure estimated by government for this is about 2% of those claiming benefits – and in fact many for various reasons don’t get benefits they are honestly due.
Now if the papers had been filled every day for years with articles criticising tax dodgers and there was a weekly TV program on folk dodging tax I bet government might feel pressure to do more about it. However the MSM know they can get away with brief attacks on the powerful creating the impression of even handedness when over a longer period they are anything but.
I’d better stop here as I’m wandering way off-topic.
Apologies if I bored some of you. But to try to tie it to on-topic, don’t just think the pro-Ibrox bias is a purely a football thing, it’s part of a more general attitude in the MSM.
BTW JohnJames site has …well … a rant on this. Has a real go at the BBC.