MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Ants to the rescueContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  * Welcome Page  
  * The Old Firm - history and statistics  
  * Old Firm Honours Lists  
  * Messageboard  
  * The Silver Lining  
  * Biased match reports  
  
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : The Hokey Cokey  
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>  (Original Message)Sent: 12/23/2008 1:55 PM
How come it's ok for the Celtic fans to parody their own religion by singing their own version of the Artur Boruc song, yet when the Rangers support respond by singing their own mickey-take version out of Boruc (containing no sectarian references whatsoever) it suddenly becomes a national issue that prompts front page headlines in the newspapers ?

And yet in last week's edition of The Celtic View we have the Celtic official columnist referring to "the establishment media".

Only in 21st century Scotland.

As TGO has said in the past, will the last person out please switch off the lights.....


First  Previous  10-24 of 24  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 10 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameTheGingerOracleSent: 12/23/2008 9:03 PM
Link:
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5375697.ece
 
 

Reply
 Message 11 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/23/2008 9:13 PM
Here you are :-
 
 
 
And why are the catholic church and this no-mark MSP suddenly getting so upset about this when the Celtic fans have been doing this parody of their own religion for years ?
 

Reply
 Message 12 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/23/2008 10:40 PM
A copy of this link has been e-mailed to Michael Matheson MSP, asking for his comments.

Reply
 Message 13 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/23/2008 11:00 PM
'Out of office' reply received, supposedly on holiday till 5th January. I'll be watching carefully to see if he comments anywhere else on any matter whatsoever before then.

Reply
 Message 14 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamegary-mc23Sent: 12/23/2008 11:24 PM
This is what to look forward to if we ever gain independance!

Reply
 Message 15 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameCollegeRoscoSent: 12/24/2008 9:31 AM
They'll be banning "Happy Birthday" next as it's a party tune!

Reply
 Message 16 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MartyCSent: 12/24/2008 9:46 AM
closely followed by the agadoo as it involves shaking trees and pushing pineapples and other general vandalism.
 
seriously tho this msp should be seriously looking for a more constructive way to wasting the tax payers money. i think id rather be reading about them spending it on limos for thier wife and lavish parties than this waste of time.

Reply
 Message 17 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/24/2008 2:09 PM
I've had confirmation that Mr Matheson read my e-mail at 8.06am this morning.
 
He hasn't given me the courtesy of a reply so far.

Reply
 Message 18 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/24/2008 5:58 PM
The RST have also written to Matheson :-
 
Michael Matheson MSP
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP

24 December 2008

Dear Mr Matheson,

You were recently quoted saying:

"It is important that the police and football clubs are aware of the sinister background to this ('Hokey Cokey') song, and take the appropriate action against individuals and groups who use it at matches or in other situations to taunt Catholics."

Firstly, do you have any evidence whatsoever that this has ever happened?

Secondly, perhaps the next time a journalist is fishing for a quote to beef up a non-story, you'll reflect on whether getting your name in the newspapers is more important than puffing stories designed to exaggerate and distort the extent of sectarianism?

A large number of our members have expressed disappointment, puzzlement and disbelief at your remarks. A song that 99.9% of the population view as a harmless party song for kids, sung once in a blue moon, is now caricatured as having a 'sinister background' and (surprise, surprise) being ascribed to Rangers supporters for sectarian reasons.

At a stroke, you have ensured that a song never heard previously at a Rangers game gets an airing at Ibrox on December 27th.

You have also opened the door to yet another round of specious accusations of sectarianism to be levelled by the very same people who only recently went out of their way to be offended and describe as 'racist', a nine-word chant sung by one group of Scots of Irish descent to another group of Scots of Irish descent.

You must be very proud.

In the unlikely event that you ever decide to contribute to the much-needed dialogue about the extent and nature of football-related sectarianism, the Rangers Supporters' Trust will be happy to work with you.

However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will assume you share the self-serving, sectarian agenda of John Reid and George Galloway and are more interested in playing to the political gallery than in helping the rest of us address serious issues in a serious way.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Smith

Chair,

Rangers Supporters Trust

Reply
 Message 19 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/27/2008 10:47 PM
Predictably, there was not one single airing of The Hokey Cokey at Ibrox this afternoon. There never has been.
 
How convenient that Michael Matheson MSP raises this issue before disappearing off on his holiday, eh ? He hopes that when he comes back we'll all have forgotten his slur on the Rangers support, meanwhile in some peoples' minds our image will have taken another dent. That, of course, was his aghenda all along here.
 
I wonder how amused he was as he took his seat in the Broomloan Road Stand today and saw the banner that went round the Rangers end at half-time ? Ridiculously, the police decided that this banner was offensive enough to be confiscated, while IRA songs and similar humorous banners were tolerated without any form of action at the other end of the ground.
 
 
And yet Celtic are allowed to make reference in their official club opinion column in their official club newspaper about "the establishment" being against them. Only in 21st century Glasgow, eh ?

Reply
 Message 20 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/28/2008 1:15 PM
Meanwhile, total and utter scumbags like this get no mention in the papers whatsoever.
 

Reply
 Message 21 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameTheGingerOracleSent: 12/28/2008 7:15 PM
I've seen some shocking things on football shirts down the years but that has to be the lowest of the low. The really frightening thing about it is that this isn't a daft young boy, from the photo the guy looks to be in his forties. I actually suspect that photograph was taken by an equally shocked C*ltic fan. I'd like to think so anyway, this scumbag throroughly deserves to be outed.
 
Now I'm not really into fighting (not any more anyway ) but if I met that guy in the street wearing that top I would be physically unable keep my mouth shut.

Reply
 Message 22 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamegary-mc23Sent: 12/28/2008 7:30 PM
It has to be asked, Who printed the shirt?

Reply
 Message 23 of 24 in Discussion 
From: Nessie �?/A>Sent: 12/28/2008 9:05 PM
Yep, in days when JJB refuse to even print "Simply The Best" on the back of a Rangers jersey because it is classed as sectarian (I kid you not, that actually is their policy !), gary is correct. Which shop allowed that slogan and number to be printed onto the jersey ?

Reply
 Message 24 of 24 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamegary-mc23Sent: 12/28/2008 9:35 PM
I tried everywhere to get a number 4 for my son for the 3rd kit couldn`t get one, Then when i was in Stirling i enquired in one of the stores, but did not have the shirt with me,They had one but refused to sell me the number to take to one of their stores nearer me, I asked what was the harm in a number and was told  it was company policy that any names or numbers had to be printed when bought.

First  Previous  10-24 of 24  Next  Last 
Return to General