H J Simpson Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Let it first be said that I am no fan of his and find his articles in the evening news at best cringeworthy but more often than not just embarasing rambles but I read it today and he mentions the sectarian singing and I agreed with what he said: No room for divisive factions in Hearts support THERE were about 50 teenagers in front of us, at the back of the front section of Rugby Park on Saturday. They were having a rare old time singing Rule Britannia and waving their Red Hand of Ulster flags. I suspect the youngsters did not know fully what they were doing, and there appeared to be a few older ringleaders. But I'm glad to report that they were shouted at by the real fans who cheered when Strathclyde Police cleared them out ? a few in the first half, and the rest at half time. I understand that a few Hearts security people were there to help. I hope we can find some way of preventing a recurrence because quite frankly, we don't want, need or deserve to be associated with such divisive factions. We are a family club and if these people want to support Hearts, then they should act like it. Otherwise, I can think of others who would be more suitable beneficiaries of their entrance money. He is apparently standing against George Galloway for Rector of Edinburgh Uni who in his Daily Record article posted amongst other things the following comment about George Foulkes He refused to condemn the actions of his son, when the latter was fined for police described as the longest and most vile sectarian tirade they had ever heard at a Scottish football match. Does anyone know anything about the incident he's mentioning and surely if that is the case then his statment in the evening news just shows him up as a massive hypocrite. (Apologies if this is in the wrong area) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Thread number 4:mw_rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Touchy subject, bordering on human rights issue all of them being ejected. Glad wee fat Dode has told us we are a family club. Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Team Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Let it first be said that I am no fan of his and find his articles in the evening news at best cringeworthy but more often than not just embarasing rambles but I read it today and he mentions the sectarian singing and I agreed with what he said: No room for divisive factions in Hearts support THERE were about 50 teenagers in front of us, at the back of the front section of Rugby Park on Saturday. They were having a rare old time singing Rule Britannia and waving their Red Hand of Ulster flags. I suspect the youngsters did not know fully what they were doing, and there appeared to be a few older ringleaders. But I'm glad to report that they were shouted at by the real fans who cheered when Strathclyde Police cleared them out ? a few in the first half, and the rest at half time. I understand that a few Hearts security people were there to help. I hope we can find some way of preventing a recurrence because quite frankly, we don't want, need or deserve to be associated with such divisive factions. We are a family club and if these people want to support Hearts, then they should act like it. Otherwise, I can think of others who would be more suitable beneficiaries of their entrance money. He is apparently standing against George Galloway for Rector of Edinburgh Uni who in his Daily Record article posted amongst other things the following comment about George Foulkes He refused to condemn the actions of his son, when the latter was fined for police described as the longest and most vile sectarian tirade they had ever heard at a Scottish football match. Does anyone know anything about the incident he's mentioning and surely if that is the case then his statment in the evening news just shows him up as a massive hypocrite. (Apologies if this is in the wrong area) Regardles of what his son did, or did not say, how do the actions of Foulkes's son make Foulkes himself a hypocrite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Touchy subject, bordering on human rights issue all of them being ejected. Not really. Regardles of what his son did, or did not say, how do the actions of Foulkes's son make Foulkes himself a hypocrite? Because he refused to condemn his son's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Because he refused to condemn his son's actions. A father stands up for and backs his son, what a rotter eh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 To be fair to Alex Foulkes it was Celtic Park that he was nicked at so I?d take the policeman?s comment with a pinch of salt. Used to know him at Uni and he was a good lad - He was also a grown up at the time and was thus responsible for his own actions. Certainly his father should not be deemed anwerable in any way. Having said this I have no time for GF and his whole "voice of the Hearts support" stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Not really. Because he refused to condemn his son's actions. It may, at a push, show a lack of consistency but certainly does not affect the accuracy of his statement regarding Saturday's situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H J Simpson Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share Posted January 19, 2009 Regardles of what his son did, or did not say, how do the actions of Foulkes's son make Foulkes himself a hypocrite? Because he's prepared to criticse people for behaving in a certain manner but refuses to criticse one of his own for the same behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Not really. Because he refused to condemn his son's actions. Care to explain? As a Catholic family man I have no hidden agenda here but if a teenager wants to carry a UJ and sing Rule Britania he should be able to without being ejected by the Police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 A father stands up for and backs his son, what a rotter eh!! Nah, but happy to tell other parents how their son's should behave! It may, at a push, show a lack of consistency but certainly does not affect the accuracy of his statement regarding Saturday's situation. Don't disagree with that comment whatsoever. Care to explain? As a Catholic family man I have no hidden agenda here but if a teenager wants to carry a UJ and sing Rule Britania he should be able to without being ejected by the Police. The Police at the scene could reasonably assess it as actions likely to cause a Breach of the Peace and use that for their reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Nah, but happy to tell other parents how their son's should behave! Don't disagree with that comment whatsoever. The Police at the scene could reasonably assess it as actions likely to cause a Breach of the Peace and use that for their reasoning. What part is the breach of peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Because he's prepared to criticse people for behaving in a certain manner but refuses to criticse one of his own for the same behaviour. Or perhaps he dealt with it in private and took the line of least said soonest mended. Just because he didn't have a full page spread in the press has no bearing on what happened behind closed doors. I have no time for Gf but he can't be held responsable for what his grown son does,and as has been pointed out just how much truth was spouted by Strathclyde's finest? Many on here have tales of being ejected or jailed for what appears to be very little. Perhaps Gf's son was recognised and picked on for that reason. There are too many possiblities to account for on here, but taking what he has said in the press GF is 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 What part is the breach of peace? Possibly that waving UJ's and singing "traditional" songs were liable to incite other supporters? I don't know, I'm not a copper! But...I would say that as far as Human Rights go it is a non starter as the BotP is a bit of a catch all that can apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Possibly that waving UJ's and singing "traditional" songs were liable to incite other supporters? I don't know, I'm not a copper! But...I would say that as far as Human Rights go it is a non starter as the BotP is a bit of a catch all that can apply. Only in this country I suppose. I doubt carrying an Italian flag in Italy and singing the national anthem/war song would be classed as BotP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Only in this country I suppose. I doubt carrying an Italian flag in Italy and singing the national anthem/war song would be classed as BotP. Unfortunatly you have made the clasic mistake. It's not the flag that's the problem, it's the minority that have hijacked the flag for their own agenda that's wrong. There are also many who beleive they are Scottish first and foremost and British second. They see the unionist as an agenda against their country. It's a great shame that a few can cause so much disruption but at a football match things have moved on and singing certain songs are no longer acceptable to the majority. Those who continue to sing them harp on about a union and democracy but won't comply with the majority when it goes against their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandylejambo Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Only in this country I suppose. I doubt carrying an Italian flag in Italy and singing the national anthem/war song would be classed as BotP. ye but carrying the spanish flag in the catalonian region (barcelona) might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Only in this country I suppose. I doubt carrying an Italian flag in Italy and singing the national anthem/war song would be classed as BotP. I suppose in Italy there is perhaps a greater sense of unity and little sectarian undercurrent that can be attached to said songs. Interesting to find out the lyrics to an Italian war song. "Hands up, baby hands up, gimme your heart, gimme, gimme, your heart gimme, gimme...." perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I suppose in Italy there is perhaps a greater sense of unity and little sectarian undercurrent that can be attached to said songs. Interesting to find out the lyrics to an Italian war song. "Hands up, baby hands up, gimme your heart, gimme, gimme, your heart gimme, gimme...." perhaps? What do you mean you can't find reverse? We have fourteen of them ya clown. Don't know how to put that to music but it would be a blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We_are_the_Hearts Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Unfortunatly you have made the clasic mistake. It's not the flag that's the problem, it's the minority that have hijacked the flag for their own agenda that's wrong. There are also many who beleive they are Scottish first and foremost and British second. They see the unionist as an agenda against their country. It's a great shame that a few can cause so much disruption but at a football match things have moved on and singing certain songs are no longer acceptable to the majority. Those who continue to sing them harp on about a union and democracy but won't comply with the majority when it goes against their agenda. But is their agenda breaking the law. Anyway, as stated above it is of no real concern to me. Youngsters will be youngsters, just think it is a fine line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 But is their agenda breaking the law. Anyway, as stated above it is of no real concern to me. Youngsters will be youngsters, just think it is a fine line. On it's own, no. But when done in a football ground the Police may see it as an attempt at winding up other fans and as such act against it to stop the matter escalating - hence the catch all Breach of the Peace. That's how I see it, not saying whether it is right or wrong, merely how I interpret the action taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardia Jambo Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I suppose in Italy there is perhaps a greater sense of unity and little sectarian undercurrent that can be attached to said songs. Interesting to find out the lyrics to an Italian war song. "Hands up, baby hands up, gimme your heart, gimme, gimme, your heart gimme, gimme...." perhaps? Totally wrong ! No sense of unity ! WE don't like southern people and viceversa. I will never show an italian flag....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 On it's own, no. But when done in a football ground the Police may see it as an attempt at winding up other fans and as such act against it to stop the matter escalating - hence the catch all Breach of the Peace. That's how I see it, not saying whether it is right or wrong, merely how I interpret the action taken. I would suggest you are correct. The BoTP charge is a catch all law that covers every eventuality the law makers may have missed, in specific legislation, and the police use it cartblanch. Often there is no crime whatsoever and the police us it to evict people from football matches simply because they have taken a dislike to them.( strathclyde's finest? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Totally wrong ! No sense of unity ! WE don't like southern people and viceversa. I will never show an italian flag....... I did say "perhaps"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leginten Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Only in this country I suppose. I doubt carrying an Italian flag in Italy and singing the national anthem/war song would be classed as BotP. Foulkes must have been pretty far back, or pretty hard of hearing, if the only thing he heard being sung was Rule Britannia. It was by some distance the least contentious of the ditties the Old Fruit Loyal were urging their apprentices to sing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans von Luck Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 ye but carrying the spanish flag in the catalonian region (barcelona) might Flag Debate ............again Nothing wrong with old Georges laddie getting emptied from that cess pit Darkheid anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neave Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Loving the fake outrage from so many different parties at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3,856
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.