TonTon wrote: "assaulted" is that word they use when no-one has been punched or kicked or hurt, isn't it? I dunno, as E10 says, these people need to have a look at actual violence, and then dial down the rhetoric.
No it's not, you're wrong. In Scotland 'assault' means actual physical violence took place, whether the victim was 'hurt' or not isn't relevant, a physical act of violence has to take place for it to be assault. If the act is verbal it's called 'breach of the peace'.
It might surprise you to know that some of us up here have seen "actual violence" in our otherwise cosseted lives and are able to tell the difference between outpourings of joy and punches to the head.
Speaking with people last night who witnessed it apparently Lee Wallace, Wes Foderingham and Davie Weir were all punched and in Wallace's case also spat on.
Be honest, if half the Rangers support had invaded the pitch after the semi-final when we'd just beaten our city rivals for the first time in five years following a few years where we'd genuinely wondered if we'd even have a club and if some of those supporters had then attacked Scott Brown and John Collins before heading for the Celtic support and goading them into a fight would the reaction be the same?
Would it be compared to Wembley 77 by commentators and politicians (as if Wembley 77 is something to aspire too) or would there be calls for parliamentary enquiries and sectarian summits and more navel gazing and knee-jerk polemics from the usual Scottish media and political suspects? It's a rhetorical question.
I genuinely wish Hibs well, they deserved their win and who can grudge them it after the season they've had. But there's a hypocrisy in Scotland when it comes to victims and perpetrators and that's not right, Hibs aren't some cuddly toy underdogs they're the fifth best supported side in the country and have had a section of total cunts in their support for as long as I've been attending football.
Punches to the head are bad, in general - though of course there are exceptions. I wouldn't make one here, though, so yes, if anyone got punched in the head, that's bad.
My experience of the use of the word "assault" in general discourse (rather than in court, where we aren't) is that it is used to exaggerate the severity of an incident. Like claiming that anything that involves physical contact is "violence". But, again, punches to the head are bad. No question.
AMMS asks a fair question and, despite me being more delighted by yesterday's result than by any Scottish football result in years, attacking players can't possibly be defended.
That said, by far the most troubling video I've seen of yesterday is this one in which the violence appears to be triggered when Rangers fans attempt to abduct a Hibs-supporting child.
Hofzinser wrote: AMMS asks a fair question and, despite me being more delighted by yesterday's result than by any Scottish football result in years, attacking players can't possibly be defended.
That said, by far the most troubling video I've seen of yesterday is this one in which the violence appears to be triggered when Rangers fans attempt to abduct a Hibs-supporting child.
What the fuck?! The response meted out to the apparent abductor is one "punch to the head" that can surely be justified.
That video is hugely distressing, fuck knows what's happened in the run up to it but there's an adult there that I'm not comfortable sharing streets with.
Borracho: in summary, amidst the melee a Rangers fan (we'll call him RF1) grabs a wean in a Hibs shirt. A second Rangers fan tries to drag RF1 away from the wean, but is shrugged off. At this point, an adult Hibs fan comes over and punches RF1 in the head and the kid escapes. As Rob and Hof said, disturbing stuff for all sorts of reasons.
Elsewhere, Falkirk are losing the 2nd leg of the playoff final 4-0 after being 1-0 up from the first leg. After the events of this weekend, I think we'll have to change the term "Hibsing it" to "Falkirking it".
Oddly, not a single mention of the sectarian chanting heard predominantly during the game.
I agree there is a point there but what is it with these Rangers club statements? That other one when Scottish football was told to desist from any more investigations or discussions into 2012 and liquidation bore the same hallmarks as this one- a passive-aggressive arrogant victimhood permeating throughout. It's weird at best, sinister at worst.
We acknowledge that a tiny minority of Rangers fans also encroached on the pitch but only after having been faced with prolonged and severe provocation
With some of this lot, "prolonged and severe provocation" could mean almost anything. Losing the match, for instance. Or an ex-Celtic player scoring two of the opposition's goals.
I don't think I have ever read an official club statement as wild-eyed and ranty as that Rangers one and I saw all of Sam Hammam's unhinged communiques at Cardiff for six years.
Comment