Paul McBride QC joins Eddie this week and together they take a look back over the events of the past season. Paul explains his reasons for speaking out against the injustices the SFA appeared to be inflicting upon Celtic. He talks of Celtic's desire for a fair crack of the whip and his hopes for the coming season with regard to the SFA reforms. He takes us through his experiences following his decision to speak out and tells us whether or not he regrets his actions. Paul talks frankly about his friendship with Neil Lennon and tells us why he thinks the Celtic manager is singled out for a previously unheard of level of abuse. He gives us his opinion on the proposed legislation regarding sectarianism and tells us what he thinks will lead to prosecution under this new law. Paul gves his opinion regarding the internet, the part it plays in the abuse heaped upon Neil Lennon and just what the authorities can do to control it. On top of all this they still manage to find time to discuss football and Paul tells us of his experiences as a referee and what he hopes Celtic and Neil Lennon will achieve in the coming season.
In case you haven't guessed - this one's not to be missed.
The feed for the podcast can be found here . Remember you can subscribe via itunes here .
You can listen to and download the latest podcast here.
The feed for the podcast can be found here. Remember you can subscribe via itunes here. Seriously, if you have mates that don't currently listen send them the link for this one - http://bit.ly/cupod145
To get in touch with us regarding any comments, suggestions, criticisms or wildly inaccurate rumours you'd like to see addressed on the next podcast, or if you'd like to contribute with an mp3 you can email, leave your comments below or phone the hotline on 0141 416 1067.
McBride talks some pish in this webcast. He says that we all know what is offensive. Really!
The man he named as the police officer tasked with tacking sectarianism, Campbell Corrigan clearly doesn’t. This was the policeman who talked in glowing terms about the marvellous atmosphere at the CIS cup final when tens of thousands of Rangers fans belted out their anthems of hate.
There are already clearly defined crimes for those that spew out racist or sectarian bile at football matches and the police choose not to act against those who commit these crimes.
The woolly new offence of causing “offense” which McBride says includes the word Hun is purely subjective. The sole arbiters who will determine what is or is not offensive are the police. I guess that Campbell Corrigan and his merry Masonic men will find Hun offensive before the words of the Billy Boys.
I can see the need for curbing internet threats but see no benefit in widening the terms of what is offensive. This is a recipe for disaster.
This legislation is obviously something he has backed and needs to be seen to endorse but he is one of the few lawyers to do so.
Similarly McBride is in a minority of one in thinking that this legislation could be introduced in a fortnight.
For a man who spends much of his time dealing with the harsh side of life and the worst of human nature he seems very naive if he thinks this proposed new legislation will do anything to stop those such as Jason Campbell.
Hmmm.... I've been as guilty as anyone, but, to want desperately to reserve the right to call someone a "Hun" TO CAUSE OFFENCE while crying out of the horror of the line "up tae wur knees in fenian blood" being sung, is pretty disingenuous.
I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but I do think there is some sense in Celtic fans endeavouring to ditch this.
I know Celtic don't have anything remotely approaching the vileness of The Billy Boys or The Famine Song (truly the pits), but that shouldn't be a cue to bask in our impeccable moral standards.
#1 Fife Bhoy Your comment about Jason Campbell is a cheap shot at Paul McBride. I think it would be wise to give his views on law and law-making some precedence, rather than pooh-poohing it the way you have. He is obviously that strange phenomenon of a right-wing Celtic fan. Nevertheless, he is an extremely sharp legal mind, respected throughout the country. Having someone like that who is willing to speak out on Celtic's behalf is an incredibly powerful tool.
I take my hat off to his participating in this podcast.
I base my comments on what McBride said in the podcast and it was pure unadulterated pish, which I reiterate has few backers in legal circles. He is as you say: “an extremely sharp legal mind, respected throughout the country. Having someone like that who is willing to speak out on Celtic's behalf is an incredibly powerful tool”. That does not exempt him from criticism when he is talking rot.
And as a matter of fact the same comments—or the first part—you make about him could be made about Donald Findlay and often are. Or they could be made about the best QC’s in England who were bounced into making hasty law for Tony Blair when there was a whole series of instances of yobbish behaviour.
Then we had Tony Blair (on the best of legal advice) suggesting that the yobs should be marched off to the nearest cashpoint. When that was rubbished the ASBO system was brought in and it didn’t work. But these measures were all political initiatives to make the incumbent PM look good. Salmond has the same motives and he will have lawyers like McBridge agree with him for the sake of appearances.
Such knee-jerk law making seldom does any good.
Do you think that it is right that a fan calling someone a Hun at a football match could end up getting 5 years, while someone murdering a pensioner in their home during a robbery might get the same or even less?
Some of the comments I made about McBride could be applied to Donald Findlay, but the term 'disgraced rancid bigot' could only be applied to one. I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make there.
Did I say he was exempt from criticism?
Why would a Scottish Tory want to make Alex Salmond look good?
Did I intimate that anyone should get a prison sentence for calling someone a hun?
The hasty law that you allude to is in my eyes, exactly that. My point was that why should we 'plead the 1st amendment' so to speak, to call someone a 'hun'?
Context is everything.
"Fenian blood".
"Paddy McCourt's Fenian Army."
I have friends who are Rangers supporters who refer to themselves as huns.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of mentally redundant bottom feeders out there who think that 'hun' is a sectarian term. They have muddied the water.
Regardless, I do think it's worth debating whether the use of that term is worth fighting for. And I'm still on the fence to be honest. Mainly because, it's the huns we're talkin about here.
#4 Little Drummer Bhoy, the point I was trying to make about Donald Findlay and those QCs who advised Tony Blair was simply that we should not defer –as you appeared to be doing in your first post with the “give his views on law and law-making some precedence”—to McBride as he is simply one legal opinion, and in this case a lone voice in legal circles where many have negative views about this proposed bill. He handled the SFA well but that doesn’t make him infallible.
I don’t know why a Tory would want to make Salmond look good but McBride has certainly nailed his colours to Salmond’s mast at a time when the SNP convener of the Justice Committee that will be tasked with processing the bill is less than enthusiastic about it and its timetable. Perhaps the idea of this legislation came from a suggestion of McBride’s, I don’t know?
The bill was said to be the result of all of the sectarian incidents last season but I cannot think of one incident that took place then that was not covered by existing legislation? The bill for this new legislation does not even try to define sectarianism yet it is meant to cure it by imposing penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment for the vague crime of “offending” someone.
I don’t agree with us singing about the IRA at football matches, but don’t think singing “go home yah Hun” is near being an offence that would attract a prison term. But these views are subjective. Simply my opinion and what would matter if the bill comes into force is the opinion of the Glasgow policeman. That to me is a disaster in the making. McBride seems content with this. I am not, given my experiences of the police ignoring my reports of racist/sectarian offences, for which legislation already exists.
To me the Scottish establishment cannot come to terms with the fact that there is a societal problem with anti-Irish racism and anti-RC bigotry. So when the symptoms of this sickness came to the attention of the world last season there was a need to portray these events as simply a football problem requiring a football solution.
Consequently we see a bill that will harshly punish “sectarian” football fans but ignores Orange Order parades. The bill that McBride supports is simply a fig-leaf to cover Scotland’s embarrassment at being found to be a bigoted wee country.
I fear that if the bill is passed we will see large numbers of our supporters arrested in order to portray sectarianism as a purely football phenomena where “one lot is as bad as the other” whereas at present the majority of instances of sectarianism come from one side.
McBride as good as endorsed the “two sides of the same coin” argument. I don’t see it that way and though we have our clowns, who have been emboldened by seeing their counterparts at Ibrox get away with murder for years while the police stood back, we ain’t as bad as them.
My last word on the subject is God help us if McBride backs the bill on behalf of Celtic.
You are both making fair points. I personally do not want to sound like "I reserve the right to call someone a Hun", but as Eddie said to PMQC where do we draw the line from sectarian chants to plain old rivalry?
PMQC was getting a bit utopian.In his world we would end up with Old Firm games with no singing for fear of causing offence. Rivalry in part is the very essence of football.
Personally I feel if we stop the IRA chants, they stop the sectarian singing and both Orange and Republican marches are banned we would be on the right tracks. To start breaking it down even further would be silly.
PMQC is obviously a very dynamic,intelligent guy, but I feel he is maybe a bit too immersed in law to see this like the average fair minded Celtic or Rangers fan, but then again I don't have to be involved in cases where people are getting stabbed and slashed every week as a result of being called these "terms"
I don't think that Paul McBride added anything to the debate about the legislation that hasn't already been discussed and dissected by others on this podcast and website.
I can see that getting this interview was something of a coup for the site and Eddie is to be congratulated for pulling it off, but McBride has no greater insights as to the realities of being a member of our own community than the rest of us.
His relationship with Neil Lennon and the glimpses he afforded us of what our manager has had to endure were revealing, but there was little in the rest that was new to those of us who inhabit Celtic Cyberspace.
It was a good listen, but to my mind did not merit the billing Eddie gave it. E.P is as good an interviewer as P.McB. was a subject.
Oh and by the way submission OB16 is from a QC and ex-Labour MSP who reckons the new laws should clamp down on those such as the “supposed journalist” (Leggat reckons its Phil) who by his exaggerated lies about “Anti Irish Catholic” hatred in Scotland on his website is inducing the hatred which has infiltrated footballing websites.
This would result in Phil getting a 5-year stretch if the bill is implemented and this particular “extremely sharp legal mind” has his way.
Why don’t you have your say? The deadline for written submissions is Friday 26 August 2011.
Fife Bhoy, I read OB16 - Gordon Jackson's submission.
Is that not the most infuriating pile of pish you've ever seen?
He talks about the Democratic right to free speech and then chooses the blog of a 'supposed journalist' who is commenting on socio-cultural issues that this country does not know ho to deal with as his example of the kind of material that should be made an offence by new legislation. You couldn't make it up.
Quite clearly, Jackson and his ilk in the political class are as in denial about Scotland's shame as your average knuckle-dragger.
To use this podium to attack MacGiollabhain (or whoever...) when such a litany of virulent hatred towards Neil Lennon exists on the web, is both shameless and shameful.
Appalling. Pathetic. Because he doesn't like his 'best small country in the world' bubble being burst, he wants the big bad guy who's saying all the bad stuff to go away.
#9 Little Drummer Bhoy, the submission to the Justice Committee by Gordon Jackson is indeed a pile of pish as you put it, so perhaps you can respect my right to consider the opinions of his fraternal brother Paul McBride in a similar light.
Both are described as being at the top of their profession and year after year are in the top three recipients of public funds by way of legal aid.
McBride is in favour of the bill and outlawing language such as Hun and Jackson (equally supportive of the bill) is wanting journalists such as Phil MacGiollabhain to be the targets of the new legislation.
I think McBride’s views were rubbish but like you I am absolutely appalled by Jackson for his attack on free speech. When supporting Donald Findlay QC in 2007 Jackson stated to the Sunday Times: “Of course free speech has limits. There is a line we should not allow anyone to cross. Incitement to violence is wrong. But the individual's right to express a sincerely held opinion even when that offends some, or indeed many people is an important principle. A free and tolerant society can comfortably allow any individual to do just that. Defending that right in whatever context is correct”
So Jackson would fight to the death for the right of free speech for one of his WASP brethren but would jail an Irish RC journalist who criticises Scotland’s record on anti-Irish/RC bigotry.
The sad thing for me is that when a policeman acts on this new law and arrests some poor unfortunate he will, more than likely, have the attitude of Jackson. And when the unfortunate victim is brought before a sheriff or judge they in turn will probably have the same views their fellow faculty member has so clearly and publicly voiced.
That is the danger of giving draconian new powers to the police to arrest on what they think is “offensive” when it could result in a fine and 5 years imprisonment.
#10 Fife Bhoy, you have every bit of my respect on this issue, you clearly feel passionately on the subject and the references and quotes you have used show that you have a robust knowledge of the issues.
I felt your Jason Campbell remark was un-called for and that McBride's views on 'hun' were worthy of debate. On all points regarding the proposed legislation and on free speech, I agree with you totally, and have said as much. I'm not looking for a tete a tete.
On Jackson, the MP he put this complaint to is Brian Donohoe. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Mr. Donohoe would see this viewpoint sympathetically, considering he is a member of the Westminster Rangers Supporters Club. Perhaps I'm being slightly unfair on Donohoe by assuming he would advocate the singling out of someone like Phil Mac, simply because he's a Rangers fan...
However, the main thought I had after reading Jackson's contadictory verbal faeces, was that Phil must be doing something right.
But surely, surely any reasonable person would read that and question the muddled logic where one journalist's 'exaggerated lies regarding "Anti Irish Catholic" hatred in Scotland' incites 'much of the hatred which has infiltrated many footballing websites'?
How about... Rather, the hatred that has infiltrated many footballing websites, social networking sites, work emails and so on is a symptom of this Anti-Irish and Anti-Catholic hatred in Scottish society and the 'supposed journalist' is commenting on this subject.
The fact that using his own freedom of expression to disagree with Phil Mac's ponts is not enough for Jackson, but he feels the urge to silence this type of opinion, is very enlightening indeed.
#6 Eeramacaroonbar You make a great point that I missed earlier. I think you're right, McBride and also Gordon Jackson are too immersed in law to have a balanced viewpoint. Perhaps these types of people see law and law-making as the ultimate way to stop things that they don't agree with or find offensive, rather than dealing with the root of the problem. We know this isn't a problem that any government is going to arrest it's way out of.
Seems McBride wants some sort of Japanese J League support at Celtic games?
Shame the guy comes across so badly after initially speaking out. So he stands up for Celtic then once he is a bit of star tells Celtic fans to get back into line. Interesting stance.
As a QC he is clearly out of touch with the tribalism of football and the line between rivalry and sectarianism.
McBride seems to have been brought into line with the 'both as bad as each other' mantra.
You seem to get Paul is going from silk to ermine. His obvious departure from what it is to be a Celtic fan,a republican and a catholic, and to understand we do have that historical link with the 'original' struggle for freedom seems to be lost. He should be judged as a man of conscience but he is wrong in this argument. Basically he wants to shut down the Gallowgate and the Brazenhead, I like him as a Celtic man and i see him as a new John reid, a man who will see us a equal but he must understand where we all come from and its not bigotry.
I am surprised that the latest response from the BBC to complaints about the Rob McLean/Pat Nevin sectarian slur do not quote Mr McBride as evidence of the new definition of sectarian.
Comments
The man he named as the police officer tasked with tacking sectarianism, Campbell Corrigan clearly doesn’t. This was the policeman who talked in glowing terms about the marvellous atmosphere at the CIS cup final when tens of thousands of Rangers fans belted out their anthems of hate.
There are already clearly defined crimes for those that spew out racist or sectarian bile at football matches and the police choose not to act against those who commit these crimes.
The woolly new offence of causing “offense” which McBride says includes the word Hun is purely subjective. The sole arbiters who will determine what is or is not offensive are the police. I guess that Campbell Corrigan and his merry Masonic men will find Hun offensive before the words of the Billy Boys.
I can see the need for curbing internet threats but see no benefit in widening the terms of what is offensive. This is a recipe for disaster.
This legislation is obviously something he has backed and needs to be seen to endorse but he is one of the few lawyers to do so.
Similarly McBride is in a minority of one in thinking that this legislation could be introduced in a fortnight.
For a man who spends much of his time dealing with the harsh side of life and the worst of human nature he seems very naive if he thinks this proposed new legislation will do anything to stop those such as Jason Campbell.
I'm playing Devil's advocate a bit here, but I do think there is some sense in Celtic fans endeavouring to ditch this.
I know Celtic don't have anything remotely approaching the vileness of The Billy Boys or The Famine Song (truly the pits), but that shouldn't be a cue to bask in our impeccable moral standards.
#1 Fife Bhoy Your comment about Jason Campbell is a cheap shot at Paul McBride. I think it would be wise to give his views on law and law-making some precedence, rather than pooh-poohing it the way you have. He is obviously that strange phenomenon of a right-wing Celtic fan. Nevertheless, he is an extremely sharp legal mind, respected throughout the country. Having someone like that who is willing to speak out on Celtic's behalf is an incredibly powerful tool.
I take my hat off to his participating in this podcast.
And as a matter of fact the same comments—or the first part—you make about him could be made about Donald Findlay and often are. Or they could be made about the best QC’s in England who were bounced into making hasty law for Tony Blair when there was a whole series of instances of yobbish behaviour.
Then we had Tony Blair (on the best of legal advice) suggesting that the yobs should be marched off to the nearest cashpoint. When that was rubbished the ASBO system was brought in and it didn’t work. But these measures were all political initiatives to make the incumbent PM look good. Salmond has the same motives and he will have lawyers like McBridge agree with him for the sake of appearances.
Such knee-jerk law making seldom does any good.
Do you think that it is right that a fan calling someone a Hun at a football match could end up getting 5 years, while someone murdering a pensioner in their home during a robbery might get the same or even less?
Did I say he was exempt from criticism?
Why would a Scottish Tory want to make Alex Salmond look good?
Did I intimate that anyone should get a prison sentence for calling someone a hun?
The hasty law that you allude to is in my eyes, exactly that. My point was that why should we 'plead the 1st amendment' so to speak, to call someone a 'hun'?
Context is everything.
"Fenian blood".
"Paddy McCourt's Fenian Army."
I have friends who are Rangers supporters who refer to themselves as huns.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of mentally redundant bottom feeders out there who think that 'hun' is a sectarian term. They have muddied the water.
Regardless, I do think it's worth debating whether the use of that term is worth fighting for. And I'm still on the fence to be honest. Mainly because, it's the huns we're talkin about here.
I don’t know why a Tory would want to make Salmond look good but McBride has certainly nailed his colours to Salmond’s mast at a time when the SNP convener of the Justice Committee that will be tasked with processing the bill is less than enthusiastic about it and its timetable. Perhaps the idea of this legislation came from a suggestion of McBride’s, I don’t know?
The bill was said to be the result of all of the sectarian incidents last season but I cannot think of one incident that took place then that was not covered by existing legislation? The bill for this new legislation does not even try to define sectarianism yet it is meant to cure it by imposing penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment for the vague crime of “offending” someone.
I don’t agree with us singing about the IRA at football matches, but don’t think singing “go home yah Hun” is near being an offence that would attract a prison term. But these views are subjective. Simply my opinion and what would matter if the bill comes into force is the opinion of the Glasgow policeman. That to me is a disaster in the making. McBride seems content with this. I am not, given my experiences of the police ignoring my reports of racist/sectarian offences, for which legislation already exists.
To me the Scottish establishment cannot come to terms with the fact that there is a societal problem with anti-Irish racism and anti-RC bigotry. So when the symptoms of this sickness came to the attention of the world last season there was a need to portray these events as simply a football problem requiring a football solution.
Consequently we see a bill that will harshly punish “sectarian” football fans but ignores Orange Order parades. The bill that McBride supports is simply a fig-leaf to cover Scotland’s embarrassment at being found to be a bigoted wee country.
I fear that if the bill is passed we will see large numbers of our supporters arrested in order to portray sectarianism as a purely football phenomena where “one lot is as bad as the other” whereas at present the majority of instances of sectarianism come from one side.
McBride as good as endorsed the “two sides of the same coin” argument. I don’t see it that way and though we have our clowns, who have been emboldened by seeing their counterparts at Ibrox get away with murder for years while the police stood back, we ain’t as bad as them.
My last word on the subject is God help us if McBride backs the bill on behalf of Celtic.
PMQC was getting a bit utopian.In his world we would end up with Old Firm games with no singing for fear of causing offence. Rivalry in part is the very essence of football.
Personally I feel if we stop the IRA chants, they stop the sectarian singing and both Orange and Republican marches are banned we would be on the right tracks. To start breaking it down even further would be silly.
PMQC is obviously a very dynamic,intelligent guy, but I feel he is maybe a bit too immersed in law to see this like the average fair minded Celtic or Rangers fan, but then again I don't have to be involved in cases where people are getting stabbed and slashed every week as a result of being called these "terms"
I can see that getting this interview was something of a coup for the site and Eddie is to be congratulated for pulling it off, but McBride has no greater insights as to the realities of being a member of our own community than the rest of us.
His relationship with Neil Lennon and the glimpses he afforded us of what our manager has had to endure were revealing, but there was little in the rest that was new to those of us who inhabit Celtic Cyberspace.
It was a good listen, but to my mind did not merit the billing Eddie gave it. E.P is as good an interviewer as P.McB. was a subject.
Oh and by the way submission OB16 is from a QC and ex-Labour MSP who reckons the new laws should clamp down on those such as the “supposed journalist” (Leggat reckons its Phil) who by his exaggerated lies about “Anti Irish Catholic” hatred in Scotland on his website is inducing the hatred which has infiltrated footballing websites.
This would result in Phil getting a 5-year stretch if the bill is implemented and this particular “extremely sharp legal mind” has his way.
Why don’t you have your say? The deadline for written submissions is Friday 26 August 2011.
Is that not the most infuriating pile of pish you've ever seen?
He talks about the Democratic right to free speech and then chooses the blog of a 'supposed journalist' who is commenting on socio-cultural issues that this country does not know ho to deal with as his example of the kind of material that should be made an offence by new legislation. You couldn't make it up.
Quite clearly, Jackson and his ilk in the political class are as in denial about Scotland's shame as your average knuckle-dragger.
To use this podium to attack MacGiollabhain (or whoever...) when such a litany of virulent hatred towards Neil Lennon exists on the web, is both shameless and shameful.
Appalling. Pathetic. Because he doesn't like his 'best small country in the world' bubble being burst, he wants the big bad guy who's saying all the bad stuff to go away.
Raging.
Both are described as being at the top of their profession and year after year are in the top three recipients of public funds by way of legal aid.
McBride is in favour of the bill and outlawing language such as Hun and Jackson (equally supportive of the bill) is wanting journalists such as Phil MacGiollabhain to be the targets of the new legislation.
I think McBride’s views were rubbish but like you I am absolutely appalled by Jackson for his attack on free speech. When supporting Donald Findlay QC in 2007 Jackson stated to the Sunday Times: “Of course free speech has limits. There is a line we should not allow anyone to cross. Incitement to violence is wrong. But the individual's right to express a sincerely held opinion even when that offends some, or indeed many people is an important principle. A free and tolerant society can comfortably allow any individual to do just that. Defending that right in whatever context is correct”
So Jackson would fight to the death for the right of free speech for one of his WASP brethren but would jail an Irish RC journalist who criticises Scotland’s record on anti-Irish/RC bigotry.
The sad thing for me is that when a policeman acts on this new law and arrests some poor unfortunate he will, more than likely, have the attitude of Jackson. And when the unfortunate victim is brought before a sheriff or judge they in turn will probably have the same views their fellow faculty member has so clearly and publicly voiced.
That is the danger of giving draconian new powers to the police to arrest on what they think is “offensive” when it could result in a fine and 5 years imprisonment.
I felt your Jason Campbell remark was un-called for and that McBride's views on 'hun' were worthy of debate. On all points regarding the proposed legislation and on free speech, I agree with you totally, and have said as much. I'm not looking for a tete a tete.
On Jackson, the MP he put this complaint to is Brian Donohoe. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume Mr. Donohoe would see this viewpoint sympathetically, considering he is a member of the Westminster Rangers Supporters Club. Perhaps I'm being slightly unfair on Donohoe by assuming he would advocate the singling out of someone like Phil Mac, simply because he's a Rangers fan...
However, the main thought I had after reading Jackson's contadictory verbal faeces, was that Phil must be doing something right.
But surely, surely any reasonable person would read that and question the muddled logic where one journalist's 'exaggerated lies regarding "Anti Irish Catholic" hatred in Scotland' incites 'much of the hatred which has infiltrated many
footballing websites'?
How about... Rather, the hatred that has infiltrated many footballing websites, social networking sites, work emails and so on is a symptom of this Anti-Irish and Anti-Catholic hatred in Scottish society and the 'supposed journalist' is commenting on this subject.
The fact that using his own freedom of expression to disagree with Phil Mac's ponts is not enough for Jackson, but he feels the urge to silence this type of opinion, is very enlightening indeed.
Thanks for contributing this.
Shame the guy comes across so badly after initially speaking out. So he stands up for Celtic then once he is a bit of star tells Celtic fans to get back into line. Interesting stance.
As a QC he is clearly out of touch with the tribalism of football and the line between rivalry and sectarianism.
McBride seems to have been brought into line with the 'both as bad as each other' mantra.
No doubt they will in the future.
RSS feed for comments to this post.