Tom English’s Piece On Celtic And The Discipline Panel Was Cowardly, Disingenuous Nonsense.

Image for Tom English’s Piece On Celtic And The Discipline Panel Was Cowardly, Disingenuous Nonsense.

What a coward Tom English is.

His article today on the “Old Firm” – the very use of that term should render a writer immediately untrustworthy and lazy – was pure vanilla.

Here he was pretending to care about the toxic atmosphere in Scottish football, the one that he and his colleagues have worked so hard to engender with their fanning of conspiracy theories and embrace of outright lies, and at the same trying hard not to get on the bad side of Ibrox.

The article may have referenced both clubs but the headline was fundamentally dishonest in that it was actually an attack on Celtic and our call yesterday for transparency, openness and consistency from the disciplinary process.

English asked us how much “justice” we want, and then proceeded to trot out a bunch of incidents which have the sum total of nothing to do with our essential complaint.

Celtic’s specific grievance was about how incidents which are highlighted after matches are dealt with by the compliance officer.

That has damn all to do with offside goals or goals that shouldn’t have stood or penalties that weren’t given. Maybe he wants to replay games. If he does he should say so.

Part of his rant was about how Celtic would have suffered under VAR; he even obliquely hints that Celtic are not happy about its potential introduction; on the contrary. Most of us want it and can’t wait for its introduction as it will leave referees nowhere to hide when they make the sort of honking decisions they have made in this league over and over and over again down through the years. If English thinks Celtic isn’t in favour of it he hasn’t listened to our fans, our players or our manager.

I very much doubt that the board is any different.

English betrays his own thoughts, and his own fears, on the matter with this statement;

“If Celtic want consistency and fairness – or, at least, a better chance of consistency and fairness – then a version of VAR is the way to get it. Not the dog’s breakfast VAR from down south, but another version that shouldn’t be beyond the wit of man and woman in Scottish football.”

1 of 10

A Celtic player goes in for a 50/50 ball and the oppositon player comes over the ball with his studs raised and takes it and snaps the Celtic player's leg in the process? What is the correct response?

I know, and you heard this idea here first; why don’t we just ask Dave King and Steven Gerrard which particular version of VAR it is that they want, and introduce that?

The version he wants is one that will let certain clubs and people off the hook. The “dogs breakfast” he talks about is the same in England as it is across Europe, as I’m sure this idiot knows full well. His desire to see a Hampden stitch up instead tells you all you need to know about what his own priorities are. The article is nothing but an anti-Celtic snark and that, right there, is the paragraph which most clearly gives that away.

He calls out sectarianism, but only that which is directed towards Morelos, not that which pours out of the stands at Ibrox every single week. He calls out “both clubs” for making statements, but was amazingly silent when the Ibrox club went first and only found his indignation when Celtic got off the matt and started swinging back.

He goes out of his way not to discuss, at length, the major issue of the current time; Morelos’ and Kent’s disgraceful gestures to our supporters. But he does get to it eventually, putting in into the same short paragraph with which he slams the paedophilia songs.

Should we be grateful that he’s finally acknowledged those, or contemptuous of how little coverage he gives it when they’ve been prevalent for a long, long time? And they aren’t limited to the Sevco support, either, but common from the fans of other clubs, those who revel in their “moral superiority” to the Glasgow axis. Some morals.

English doesn’t give a toss about any of that, or he’d bang on about it every week and rally the rest of his organisation to highlight it until something was done about it. He too likes to think he enjoys a plain of moral superiority; he is a snivelling hypocrite.

He is as guilty as anyone he accuses of “Disposable indignation. Self-righteousness off the radar.”

This is how he chooses to debate whether or not Morelos and Kent should be up in front of the beaks; this is the paltry single line it gets in his piece.

“On-field gestures are deemed inflammatory or innocuous based on party lines.”

What cowardice that is. He hasn’t even stated a view on whether Morelos and Kent should be done or not.

It is such blatant fence sitting that his arse should be checked for skelves. In an article which slates the fans for their conduct he is perfectly willing to ignore two gestures which were massively inflammatory, and one of them committed right in front of our main stand.

If the levels of hate are as high as he says – and he underestimates it, in my view because the lunatic fringe is in charge over there and hating is all they know how to do – then those gestures are all the more shocking and all the more deserving of an official response.

This isn’t about “party lines” or any other such guff.

This is about the simple application of the rules.

Even if you believe the Ibrox excuse – and it is an open insult to our intelligence – that Morelos was making a “game over” gesture to taunt us or if you understand that he was telling our fans what he’d like to do to them, neither of those explanations lets him off the hook.

Both of them are worthy of an SFA citation.

English accuses us – the bloggers, and the online community – of all the usual pitiful nonsense, of seeing only what we want to see and criticising the media when they do report stuff and when they don’t. This, too, is largely a lie. This site has very specific grievances against the media, such as when people like English twist facts as he’s done here, when they are selective in what they choose to be outraged about and when they indulge in naked bias.

I have praised Keith Jackson for breaking big stories on just as many occasions as I have whipped him for writing diabolical nonsense.

If I’ve never extended the same courtesy to people he works with it’s because I have yet to be convinced that Ralston and his ilk have the slightest merit as writers far less as journalists.

I have savaged the BBC when they let clowns like English attack our club like this, but have no problems with someone like Michael Stewart even when I disagree with him because he is consistent, fair and has a yard of guts.

English has written a rant, and a rant with a very specific purpose; it is an attack on Celtic’s statement in the aftermath of the Christie verdict and our response to it.

I found that response to be full of hot air, but that’s not the point.

Scott Brown described that verdict as “laughable” and I agree except this isn’t a joke any longer.

When Gerrard wails about bad decisions and calls for VAR he is a visionary.

When Celtic complains we’re told to shut up.

This is what most of us cannot, and will not, abide.

This double standard. Sanctimonious nonsense as a cloak on hypocrisy.

English loves to remind us of what he is. He’s a bad hack. A rugby guy covering a game he can’t stand, letting his biases affect his outlook and trying to be controversial when, in fact, the job of a BBC reporters is to be clear, precise and factual.

It is impossible to take him seriously.

Our new quiz is out, where you get to be the SFA official in a number of scenarios …. click here or on the link earlier in the piece … and please share.

Share this article