Comment on Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review) by LUGOSI.

    Big Pink 6th September 2019 at 16:54

    Have you all left?

    Big Pink 8th September 2019 at 01:39

    Does seem spooky. Unusual and spooky.

    I can only speak for myself but recent/current events may be overshadowing football. For a couple of years we've watched POTUS and thought we've found someone who lies more glibly and more shamelessly than Dave "No Shares But Club Owner" King.

    Surely we can't lower the bar?

    "Hold my beer" said Boris.

    Boris has managed to out-Trump Trump and he's done it in days.

    Big Pink is correct about spooky and unusual but it's nothing to do with posting on here. It's spooky and unusual to hear about Tories who have been booted out or resigned being referred to as the Good Guys who are looking after democracy, who are following their consciences and are acting in the national interest. A quick skim through the 21 MPs booted out during the week would not throw up a history of Good Guys. I don't think any of them has done other than consistently act and vote in a narrow, self-serving fashion which hasn't given two hoots for democracy, conscience or national interest. You don't have to go further back than last night to find a Conservative MP resigning from the Cabinet and leaving the Tory Party for what seem to be being touted as laudable reasons. Even if you were unaware of Amber Rudd's views and history 5 minutes on Google would inform you on what she cares about what the people think, what she can and can't do with a seemingly clear conscience and the specific part of the nation she thinks has more of an interest than the rest.

    The current playing fast and loose with the law, facts and how you treat the public could have come straight out of the SFA/SPFL/MSM playbook. Anything goes so long as mission accomplished. Time will tell, in both cases, if we get the right outcome.

    In the meantime to keep a grip on sanity I suggest reading the parody Sweary Bercow Twitter account. Mr Bercow, even with his own flaws, may become the Tory who stopped or possibly ended the Tories.

    Spooky and unusual but not a worry.

    LUGOSI Also Commented

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Is anyone allowed to report unsourced UEFA decisions?


    As a reward for acting like normal human beings on one occasion in a mere 329 years The Rangers may sell an extra 3,000 tickets for their next home European fixture.


    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    Isn't there yet another staunch Court Hearing today?

    Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd?

    You've got to love that "The". You've got to be sure you're suing the proper party. You'd look silly suing Rangers Football Club Ltd or A Rangers Football Club Ltd or Any Rangers Football Club Ltd.

    From memory the Referee is Bannatyne, Lord, so the Court should be fully aware of the history of at least one of the parties. There is the potential for confusion if it is thought that the dispute concerns a Wall as a Memorial to a misfortune in 2012. To be consistent the dispute should not be about A Wall; it should be about The Wall.

    Hopefully there will be no traditional singing from the The Rangers end of the Court.

    Tangled Up In Blue by Stephen O’Donnell (Book Review)
    In the less than two days since the UEFA "bombshell" disciplinary decision (which would have been no "bombshell" at all to the The Rangers officials who would have been informed of the citing within days of the match in July) I've read and heard some of the most dishonest, disingenuous, misguided and delusional tosh the quality and integrity of which is rapidly approaching "Club dies/Haud oan, naw it disnae" proportions.

    If one were to believe press, radio, online fora and the The Rangers support utterances you would be left with the impression that there was an open question as to what singing was and was not acceptable.

    You can have your own opinion on the Walls of Derry and whether or not such a song has anything to do with football. Such is not the case with the Walls of William.

    It is over ten years since William Walls v The Procurator Fiscal, Kilmarnock [2009] HCJAC 59 in which the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary exocetted the suggestions that singing about Fenian bastards and FTP was not sectarian and that the Famine Song was not racist. I paraphrase but the Opinion of the Court was: Aye they 'ucking are."

    It is noteworthy that in the Walls v PF Kilmarnock case a notable absence in the repertoire was the always popular The Billy Boys; a charming ditty about murdering Roman Catholics. Had it been included presumably the conviction at Sheriff Court level would have been appealed on the ground that singing about being up to your knees in Fenian blood is merely a reference to bloodletting, an accepted medical procedure in the Seventeenth Century.

    Fanciful? Perhaps, but not any more fanciful than the actual proposition advanced in the Appeal Court (Findlay QC) that the Famine Song should be equated with God Save The Queen and Flower of Scotland. Unsurprisingly GSTQ and FOS was met with GTF.

    It's doubly fortunate that TBB didn't feature as in addition to the intrinsic problem of defending its content a couple of years earlier (2006?) UEFA had expressly banned it.

    We are where we are but nobody can say it is a surprise. For years if not decades this day was coming. Now those in positions where they could have done something, or anything, about it have to have their feet held to the fire (unless this would be contrary to a tradition which has to be staunchly defended).

    In no particular order the SFA, the SPFL, Police Scotland, clubs' inhouse stewarding, clubs' supporters associations and the goverment, both at national and local level, require to have a stated position on this question and further require a stated policy of what action will be taken.

    All reasonably minded people, whether they follow football or not, are entitled to know what kind of society they live in. If it's a society that is going to allow this type of behaviour, with the occasional interference from pesky outsiders, to continue those reasonably minded people would be forgiven if they took the view:

    Racism? Sectarianism? Offensive Behaviour?-

    Surrender? No.

    Recent Comments by LUGOSI

    In Whose Interests
    I see that the BBC coverage of the Supreme Court includes commentaries from the great and the good.

    The BBC have just shown the Tweets of the undoubtedly great and good James Doleman, Court Reporter.

    He may not be great enough or good enough for The People but he'll do for the BBC and he'll do for me.

    In Whose Interests
    My one takeaway from yesterday's Supreme Court hearing was what should have been a routine undertaking given by Senior Counsel on behalf of his client to the Court turned out to be not so routine.

    Lord Keen, representing the Government headed by Boris Johnson, felt obliged to give such an undertaking.

    My first thought was that if you were confident that the matter was non-justiciable you would never get on to the substance matter of what the undertaking concerned so what's the relevance of the undertaking?

    Lord Keen gave the Supreme Court, on behalf of his client, HMG in general and Boris Johnson specifically, that in the event of the advice given to The Queen being found to be unlawful (or in the Scottish case being confirmed as unlawful) Lord Keen's client would do …

    What they/he undertook to the Supreme Court that they/he would do was, at best, vague and, at worst, meaningless.

    Lord Keen's undertaking, on behalf of HMG/PM was no more specific than they/he "would address the consequences"; "respond by all necessary means" and "take the necessary steps to comply".

    Call me sceptical and/ or cynical (and you'd be correct; twice) but this undertaking strikes me as being less than magnanimous. In fact it sounds a lot like the answers given when the question is asked if Boris Johnson is going to comply with the Act of Parliament passed last week:-Of course (but he's not going to do what the Act tells him he has to do).

    Anyone who has been paying any attention to Boris Johnson knows that he is more than capable of 'addressing the consequences; responding by all necessary means and taking the necessary steps to comply' by acting in a manner which might even be worse than his current actings.

    This undertaking is not one I would place any reliance on and it was no surprise that it was not one that the Supreme Court accepted with alacrity.

    If we're looking for parallels the leading authority on undertakings to the Court is surely Dave (or is it David?) King. It will be recalled that in one of the early skirmishes between Sports Direct and King/The Rangers a case was discontinued on the basis of an undertaking by King/The Rangers that they would comply with their contractual obligations. For all I know they could have undertaken 'to address the consequences; respond by all necessary means and take the necessary steps to comply'. We all know how that turned out. This early skirmish predated the Elite On-Line Shops In Glasgow And Belfast Portacabin In Copland Road bit of compliance with contractual obligations.

    The wording of the undertaking which is being worked on by Lord Keen with Lord Panick QC and Aidan O'Neill QC should be enlightening. If it's along the lines of previous Johnson/King stances it'll be "Bad Things. We're Against Them."

    In Whose Interests
    If anyone is looking for some light reading before the start of tomorrow's Supreme Court (with a bench of 11) I can recommend the Note which has been lodged on behalf of the successful party at the Court of Session.

    It can be found on the Twitter account of Jo Maugham QC: @jolyonmaugham although there's a link on James Doleman's Twitter account.

    You might think they would just point at the unanimous 68 page Opinion of the Inner House but you'd be wrong.

    I say light reading; it runs to 92 pages and apart from a couple of typos it doesn't miss and hit the wall. Parts of it wouldn't sound out of place if read in a Mel Gibson Braveheart voice.

    John Clark and EasyJambo can only dream of being supplied with background papers like this.

    Bad Money?
    Having become innured to what is reported, or not, in Court judgments in numerous cases involving The Rangers Football Club Limited; local, National, International, Galactic, Cosmic, Wheeltappers and Shunters I now skim through the almost inevitable exocetting of the defences put up by the World's Most Successful Club (not counting Court cases. Or games. Or veracity. Or trophies. Or anger management. Cont.P94)

    From the heady days of March 2017 the Saviours of King and Murray were described as "cynical and disingenuous"; "adopting a posture" and that "their positions as Directors of the Company were hopelessly conflicted". Messrs James Blair and Stewart Robertson did not emerge from the decision with any glory either.

    Fast forward to the most recent decision and The Rangers kept up their record by losing again on every aspect of the case.

    In so doing they attracted a number of observations rarely seen in the genteel world of Court Reporting.

    Page 1 starts "The parties to this dispute are well-known-not only in the wider sporting world but also to this Court."

    Translation:-"Not you two again? Surely SD are not going to wipe the floor with TRFC again? If so do TRFC might think thy're not really cut out for this litigation malarky?"

    8. With the notable exception of Mr Underwood (Elite CEO) I found much of the witness evidence to be unhelpful and unsatisfactory.

    Mr Barnes of Sports Direct was descibed as "a mouthpiece" as was Mr Robertson of The Rangers.

    The number of mouths utilised by Mr James Blair requires a bit more arithmetic.

    Mr Blair is Rangers Company Secretary so there's one mouthpiece.

    Mr Blair was a Partner is now a Consultant with Anderson Strathearn , Solicitors to Rangers, and his DNA is all over every correspondence, missive and contract from Sports Direct to the Pub PortaCabin and all points inbetween.

    Who knows how many different mouthpieces were encountered by Sports Direct, Puma, 32 Red, Hummell, Elite, Utilita, online websites, shops in Glasgow and Belfast and a container on Copland Road? Truly a man for all seasons. Especially the marching one.

    Now I know nothing about the retail business but if even a tithe of what I've read about Mike Ashley's contract is true it looks like a lot of effort has been put in running websites, shops, containers etc. which can only result in unhappy staunchers realising that what they thought had been rendered to The Rangers will actually have to be rendered to The MASH.

    More unhappiness will ensue when MASH sends the legal expenses bill and it will come to light just how much the Masterminds in the Blue Room have spent in being so spectacularly inept.

    Bad Money?
    I see that The Rangers start their Europa Cup campaign against St Joseph's FC who play in the Gibraltar Premier Division. However it's not known if the first leg away will be next Thursday or Tuesday because another team from Gibraltar is playing tomorrow and if they win two teams from Gibraltar have to play on the one pitch Gibraltar has which meets the required specifications.

    I assume Lincoln Red Imps are Gibraltar's representatives in the Champions League and when you add on the Europa Cup teams it would seem that, for once, UEFA are not playing the Big Leagues/Big TV Audience card.

    Gibraltar has a population of about 35,000. That's about half the population of Paisley. Can anyone picture Paisley getting two Champions League and four Europa Cup places?

    Anyway, the important thing is Scottish success is vital from a co-efficient point of view.

    Preparation is all.

    The first thing to establish:

    Is St Joseph's a Primary or a Secondary School?