you have kinda put my thoughts on the whole thing in your post in a way i don't feel articulate enough to do. I can see how there is a debate to be had about the illicit chanting etc but getting all uppity about a banner that says **** UEFA? I have seen a few comments mention it wasn't the best time to display a banner considering whats been going on lately but surely it was the perfect time? most Celtic fans i know and speak with in the real world were thinking the exact same thing last week so what better place than one of UEFAs own competitions to let them know what the majority of Celtic fans (at least the ones i know) were thinking?
The whole 'banning of the word '****' at football is a rather strained argument I'm afraid. No, it's not banned across the board (obviously), but that doesn't give carte blanche to use it indiscriminately on banners. You'd get arrested or at least told to take down a banner that had 'naughty sweary words' on it anywhere else - particularly if the event was being shown on live television - so it's hardly an errosion of our civil liberties if the same / similar rules apply in a football stadium. And whilst the sentiment displayed on the banner may not be 'out of order' in itself, merely brainless and infantile, the timing undoubtedly was. We were told repeatedly our fans would be under the spotlight - the back pages were full of it for days in advance. So surely it was the time to be on our very, very bestest behaviour? Whether Celtic FC deserve to be punished for a few morons making a ****e banner is a matter of opinion (probably not imo) but it's probably the most powerful deterrent for any future 'indiscretions'. Or at least I'd hope it was. As it stands, we may only get a slap on the wrist, who knows? To be honest I suspect we'll get in more trouble for the flares which could reasonably be argued to be a safety issue.
To what extent do you agree with the statement 'Rebel is an argumentative cock'? Strongly agree - 100% (7,923 votes) Agree - 0% (0) Neither agree nor disagree - 0% (0) Disagree - 0% (0) Strongly disagree - 0% (0)
If you read the regulation that covers it (the exact same one that covers the last charge too) then as long as it the banner was deemed offensive, they can do us for it. Seeing as it was aimed at UEFA themselves, that makes it pretty easy for them to argue they were offended by it, and therefore charge us. UEFA like to make the rules up that suit them, and all the clubs in Europe have no choice but to go along with it. This regulation is a perfect example of it... Just noticed Zenit were fined 50,000 euros at the same time as us the other week for "the setting off of fireworks, illicit banners, insufficient organisation and a pitch invasion." So surely that combination means we would get slightly less than that, especially seeing as this was for it happening twice with them?
As far as I know, the board, the management, the team and the supporters all like to think we are members of the one big happy family. What does a big happy family do when a members errs. Does not a parent-like figure not reach out and try to nudge the offender back into the fold. Not like our board when an uncontested allegation was brought against some of the Celtic family the rest turned their backs on them. No one sought their side of the story and nobody even pleaded previous good behaviour. People who did not know the Celtic family were allowed without getting an input from the Celtic family to make judgement. The exact same process is going to happen again re banner and flares. Now we all know flares are wrong and we need to ensure those responsible are punished by whatever means are deemed appropriate by us.
Yes. Not to necessarily take issue with anything you specifically say, but I restrict myself entirely to the question of whether an institution should be punished for a banner held by a private citizen in a public space (in another country) outwith their (reasonable) control â and whether the words â**** Uefaâ ought to be considered in any way threatening to the fabric of civil society, to the extent that a display of these words in conjunction may be cited and included on a charge sheet of punishable social misdemeanours. In passing, though, I seem to share your sense of surprise that the words on a banner may get more coverage (or condemnation) than an assault. Did the world do a moral somersault whilst I was looking the other way? This is more suited to the other (âBannedâ) thread, right enough â and Iâll get back to these ideas later â but Scottish society appears to be going through one of its periodic spells of convulsion, which is fair enough (and even a good thing), and a growing desire to draw some lines in the sand appears to be the order of the day. Thatâs fine. Itâs as well to be able to articulate and defend where these lines might be drawn, however, as any step taken to limit the boundaries of freedom of expression should be done with the utmost clarity of purpose (and, we must hope, regret). How come people in a free society seem so inordinately keen to trample on the very bedrock of their own civilisation: the right to freedom of expression, whether they like the expression or not? (Especially if they donât like it, in fact?) I donât have any sense that the proponents for such curtailment have fully thought through the self-defeating consequences of their own actions â and, although I donât live there anymore, I donât want Scotland to be that sort of country. Iâve a sense that people merely get irritated and angry when forced to confront the (seemingly nit-picky) logic of their own anti-democratic enthusiasms. They would like it to go away and theyâd quite like the argument shut down, as if this is ever a clever or desirable thing to do. They seem to want to make a point, as opposed to making a sustainable moral (and legally watertight) principle. Needless to say, I donât particularly see any of this as being about Celtic â or these are hardly where my interests lie. I feel itâs much more important than that. In fact, itâs unfortunate that football is involved at all, really, as people tend to go tribal and illogical around the sport, which is a fascinatingly disastrous approach to take whilst trying to contemplate law.
Dev. I don't know, I was told yesterday it was one steward, perhaps tomorrow it will be three who knows where the rumours will end. I have no idea of the level of violence used on the banner carrier. There is little doubt that he did very wrong but before we forget about him altogether let us get facts. Rumours are rumours and forgive me but I think you have only heard rumours. The good name of the Celtic family was tarnished after the Rennes game. Our family did not seek out the truth, or otherwise of the allegations. If the allegations were true and undeniable true we had a most definite right to know, where the singing came from, how many song and what was song. How the hell can the rest of the Celtic family overcome the wrong, if they don't know the wrong. Other Celtic fans that know these singers could have a quiet word. Other Celtic fans could be ready when they hear this singing/chanting starting could be ready to out sing them. I don't think N. Lennon's remarks about spelling were very helpful, a couple of months ago his spelling on team lists were not great. If we don't watch ourselves we will have an even bigger problem. Lets Talk.
Hello Greenhenky. Well, yes, in this very particular instance, I tend to feel similarly: this might be seen as precisely the time to make such a protest and precisely the place to do so. Whether a majority of Celtic fans share your view or not, however, doesnât necessarily interest or worry me. I have a hunch, nothing more, that the majority may disagree with you, in fact, but this is neither here nor there. Similarly, whether I feel the banner was offensive or dumb or ill-timed is almost completely by the by. Minority views â even if they appear weird or infuriating to the majority â are no less legitimately expressed for all that. A failure to understand and embrace this simple fact, then, might be seen as a failure to understand what it means to live in a free society. And yes, Iâm well aware of the social rights versus social responsibilities arguments â and instinctively favour a lot of them myself, which doesnât make me right â but anything other than a confiscation of the banner (or, better still, a polite and successful request to put the âoffendingâ item away) seems like defeat to me; a formalising of the principle that dissent will not be tolerated. Although, if itâs simply the word â****â that causes the problem and not the act of dissent in itself â and itâs vitally important, I feel, to know the very precise nature of the crime - we must imagine that a banner reading âDamn Uefaâ or âUefa, you cads, we dispute your decision in the strongest possible termsâ would pass the seemingly arbitrary test of what passes for public opinion, taste and social etiquette. I would quite like to know who feels equipped to make these rules and value judgements on my behalf, though, and how it came to pass that they believe my eyes should be shielded from the word â****â or a (silent) show of dissent in a public setting? If this is about drawing lines, they need to draw them very, very clearly. And if Iâm offended by such a banner, then I know and love enough about living in a free society to accept that this is maybe simply a price I have to pay if I wish to continue doing so. Gratuitously, Iâll just add a â**** Uefaâ at the end of this public response of mine, in the full expectation that the world will continue to turn and that no one will suffer an injury. If somebody punishes the administrator of this site (or my mother, perhaps) for this âswearâ word and exciting show of dissent youâll forgive me if I scratch my head in confusion. **** Uefa. (Vive la Revolution!)
Hello Admiral. Yes, fair enough, I can see why you might feel itâs a strained argument, although Iâm minded to view things differently. For me, this is simply what nuanced argument looks and feels like, a vital deconstruction of the (moral) principles that may lie behind â in this instance â the decision by one person/body to take issue with and seek to penalise the decision of another person to use particular words in a public setting. Any and all attempts to do such a thing should be scrutinised to the nth degree, I feel, or we make light of our hard-won freedoms and enlightenment values. If this seems a bit dramatic for your tastes, then I canât really help you. (Not that youâre looking for help, of course, but you know what I mean.) This is all I really know and Iâm not that good at doing things differently, sorry. Probably, but this doesnât automatically make it right and it doesnât mean that I need always nod an assent to such practice, does it? I am allowed not to be offended by such âswearyâ words, after all, in the same way that others seem to find them offensive, yes? And if itâs allowed that I feel no offence, then I feel it might also be allowed for me to express my surprise that other people seem intent on making these non-offensive words publicly taboo. And if Iâm allowed to express such surprise â which I am, thankfully â then it might be recognised that not all people think the same way and that this issue is not outright black and white. Where are you drawing your lines, Admiral? Are substitute words for â****â allowed on a banner, for example? Would you have these outlawed in a public setting, too? Everyone would now know what I meant if I held up a banner saying âRoger Uefaâ, I imagine, but should such an expression be forbidden in a football stadium? If not, why not? If so, do you see the potential (and often ludicrous, true) dangers that may so very easily arise? This is how easy it is to unwind the advances (and the very principle) of free speech and I just worry that those people who so readily acquiesce to such curtailments â perhaps putting the interest of their football team before the greater moral and public good â are simply oblivious or indifferent to how quickly this could rebound on them. Rules and laws need to be fair, blind and equitable. So now someone is offended by the word âshagâ or âscrewâ in a public setting and suddenly we must all run for cover. People a lot smarter than us, Admiral, will always be able to use these rules to their own anti-democratic and self-interested advantage and theyâll have case histories to strengthen their sickly arguments. (Just look at the religious fundamentalists.) And if someone wishes to appeal to common sense, believing that itâs obvious what words we may or may not use, then I would suggest that theyâve not been paying attention these past twenty years. Why? What is it about television that makes the word â****â any more or less acceptable? Is it the size of the audience or the fact that children may be watching? Should books with a wider circulation than whatever the audience was for Celtic against Udinese be similarly circumscribed when the author tries to write the word â****â? If not, why not? Do you curb your own language and expressions on this site for fear of children reading? If not, why not? Is it only when other people use the word at times that may annoy you because they act against your interests that sees you locate a seemingly moral principle? Or do you apply these rules unequivocally to yourself? If not, why not? Ach. Iâve run out of time. Iâll need to get back to the rest of it later. Sorry for going on. Toot-tootâ¦â¦ (Then again, thereâs not a lot to say. I was merely aghast that Celtic, as a club, might be punished for such a thing, as this doesnât seem to make sense to me. It doesnât seem fair. Laters.)
The night after the Rennes game , the only thing reported on ssn that night was the racist singing at the Spurs game and could be heard loud and clear.I've yet to hear a murmour from. Our game , not saying it never happened but there appeared to be no evidence . Then last week the Stoke players couldn't take corners in Turkey for objects getting thrown at them and flares were also thrown but this game has gone unnoticed by uefa , surely all clubs should be dealt with under the same rules.
True, but if you have just been punished you can expect to be watch carefully to make sure the message is getting through. I care not a jot about spurs or whoever the turkish team was. When Rangers fans said "what about them" when facing punishment I thought they don't get it and the same thing applies here, deal with our own peoblem and let others worry about their problems.
------------------------------------------------ One supporter - named on Celtic's own website as Ross Connolly - spent the night in an Italian jail for allegedly assaulting the Celtic steward who tried to remove an offensive anti-UEFA banner before kick-off. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...lifetime-bans-shaming-club.html#ixzz1h5qA861f ------------------------------------------------- Celtic have imposed a lifetime ban on a fan they say was responsible for displaying an offensive banner and assaulting a steward during Thursday's Europa League match against Udinese. The club report that the individual was arrested by police in Italy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16227724.stm ----------------------------------------------- CELTIC Football Club today confirmed that it has identified an individual responsible for both the displaying of an offensive banner and the assault of a Celtic steward at last night´s match against Udinese. The person, Ross Connolly, was arrested last night by police in Italy and he will be banned for life from attending all of Celtic´s matches. The club is also in the process of identifying persons responsible for the use of a flare at last night´s match. We are in possession of video and photographic evidence from the match and clearly, when those responsible are identified, the club will take the appropriate action. http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=1887 ------------------------------------------------- Now that you have clearly outed yourself as a WUM, accept my congratulations on your stering efforts, you had me fooled so hats off to you. I suppose I should have guessed that no one could really be astupid as you are pretending to be
Just to be clear I haven't actually expressed my support for disciplinary action against Celtic because of this banner, nor said I found it offensive etc etc. I'm merely commenting on the law as it stands. I don't think it's unreasonable for banners dsplaying 'offensive' language to be removed regardless of the surrounding or circumstances. It's a pretty unsophisticated statement/belief/protest/slogan that requires "****" in the wording. It's worthy of note that the green brigade have displayed entirely inoffensive banners at CP regarding the current "sectarian/offensive" singing debate that were far more convincing than "**** UEFA". Besides, I'm not drawing the line anywhere. It would be massively arrogant to suggest that my own personal views should be the 'gold standard' for defining what is or not offensive. Quite evidently, these rules and where the line is drawn is by necessity somewhat arbitrary - there is no universal definition of where 'offensive' starts or ends. That might be a cop out, but I'm not convinced that potential punishment for Celtic (and that's all it is at the moment) for a banner displaying the word "****" constitutes the end of freedom of speech. The fact is that shifting opinion and changes in society alters what is and what isn't 'offensive'. Swear words in general are probably regarded as less offensive than they were a generation ago. Racism far more so. Being as vague as I possibly can my opinion is that, at any given time, we shouldn't pander either to the ultra sensitive nor to the completely insensitive. It's all about context isn't it? Television per se is not a "sweary word no go zone". But, ideally, their should be sufficient information available for those who wish to watch a program whether it might contain 'offensive' material and so they can make an informed choice as to whether they want to watch. As to whether I curb my language depending on the situation - well of course I do. I'd imagine just about everyone does. I'll use a swear word here because it's a website for adults and, well quite frankly a child browsing not606 and reading a post of mine with "****" in it should be the least of their parents' worries at what they might stumble across
Dev I don't understand you, did you not previously say that 2 stewards were attacked by Celtic fan. My point was with rumours you don't know what is happening, one attacked on yesterday's rumours, according to you 2 stewards attacked rumoured by you today, tomorrow rumoured how many. I think I called it correctly. But are our board family members treating their errand son correctly. Our family it seems to be splintering. I suppose all one nice happy united family when it comes to selling season books again. Many families have errand children, the test is how we control and bring them back into the fold. If we are going to act like P.L. and others we won't have a family anymore, we will become as bad as the others.
Hello again, Admiral. Just to continue from where I left off, although I've seen your recent comments, no worries, but find that I need to go through things methodically in the exact order that they appeared. <Autism> On the contrary, itâs precisely an erosion of our civil liberties, no matter where it happens - which isnât to say that such erosions are not sometimes either necessary or welcome, merely to point out the obvious. If a restraint â any restraint â is placed upon the means by which we choose to express ourselves, an erosion of civil liberties takes place, no? This, for me, seems self-evident, and I think itâs probably always important to recognise and categorise such things, lest we become lazy in our taking of such freedoms for granted. (I need a halo.) If your first interest is Celtic, above and beyond any considerations towards the vexing issue of free speech and the curious (suffocating?) nannyism of a tutting society, then I can see why the timing may be considered unfortunate. But thatâs a separate argument, something for Celtic fans to discuss amongst themselves â and Iâm already going round the houses with Rebel on similar sorts of themes with the singing of Republican songs (heâs a terrorist, to be fair), so Iâll happily leave you all to it on this score. Interesting. Maybe? Iâm not sure how deterrents work on the minds of those people whose interests may diverge from our own. You could be right, I just donât know. It could equally elicit a sort of martyrdom in response (which is always faintly dreary), as those people who want to write â****â on a banner dig their heels in and damn the consequences. Users of this site may be familiar with the kind of weird hysteria that sets in when people feel their right to be âoffensiveâ is being thwarted. I think there was a near meltdown, perhaps, when it was suggested that making jokes about the freshly dead Gary Speed might be considered beyond the pale? Terrific viewing, obviously, but the complete loss of perspective (on both sides) was a stunner. (For what itâs worth, I think all subjects should be open for a pitch-blackened laughter and that there is no sensible time limit to be set on such things. It doesnât mean Iâll always like it or find it particularly funny, but why should that matter?) But yes, you could be right, who knows? I think (and hope) youâre probably right. And if some abysmal wee prick has assaulted a steward, I hope he gets locked away. Iâm normally so liberal, as well. All your new comments and clarifications seemed fairly reasonable, unfortunately, so I can't think of much to say in response.
I must say that I don't understand your snide remark, but that doesn't surprise me . I think that P.Lawell, was completely out of order for naming the man allegedly with the banner before he was even charged. There is no doubt that a %, of Celtic fans maybe a hell of a lot bigger than Peter thinks were very annoyed by Celtic not contesting the "illicit Chanting" at the Rennes game which tarnished Celtic's fans good reputation and apparently gave up without a fight. Peter may have opened a can of worms bigger than he can handle. The supporters may not like some of their own called bastards by the like of Peter Lawell. Its enough for them to be mocked and sneered by the gutter press and by the ipox mobs without getting it from a current employee(s).
Allegedly of course SH. People need to be careful with what they say and do with the advent of the new anti-sectarian laws. Celtic supporters have to be have to be careful with their behaviour on the way back from matches. It will soon be illegal to behave in such a manner and punishable by up to 5 years in gaol. That would be extremely embarrassing for the club should an employee be amongst the first to be prosecuted under the new anti-bigot laws. This alleged incident took place in front of a member of the press. This person has embarrassed the club with his hypocrisy in the past. Surely this incident will prove one incident too much for the club. This person will be internally disciplined and leave the club by "mutual consent" as their position is clearly untenable unless of course the club endorses behaviour that falls foul of anti-bigot legislation. This person is obviously not a Celtic fan if they can embarrass the club in such a way.
