Dishonest media narratives will not drag Celtic into Ibrox’s sewer.

Last night my final piece argued that the media would soon find itself in an uncomfortable position. It would have to defend claims that Celtic supporters were responsible for what happened at Ibrox. Because that claim is simply not true.

I defended our supporters vigorously last night, but today I want to deal with specific allegations. Some of them are not just wrong. Some of them are dishonest.

Let’s begin with David Tanner.

I have no hesitation calling Tanner a liar. He lied on Sunday and he lied again yesterday when he described what he claims to have witnessed. His running commentary of events in front of him was grossly embellished.

Worse than that were the excuses he offered to support the idea that Celtic fans somehow provoked the violence. The most absurd example was his claim that a Celtic supporter blessed himself in front of the Ibrox support as an act of provocation.

I have dismissed the provocation argument many times before, but it deserves to be addressed one final time.

If my neighbour played his music too loudly and I responded by smashing his windows and wrecking his car, the police would not accept my claim that I was provoked. I would be in handcuffs before I finished explaining it. This is the same logic by which female rape victims are blamed for what they drink, what they wear and what they do right up to the moment they say “no”. It is a reprehensible defence to offer.

The attempt to use it tells you more about the person making the argument than about those supposedly responsible for the provocation. You have to possess a seriously warped outlook to excuse violent behaviour on those grounds.

The law punishes violence harshly precisely because there is no acceptable excuse for it outside self-defence. When journalists attempt to justify violence by invoking provocation, they engage in something deeply irresponsible.

To describe a simple act of religious expression as provocation takes that irresponsibility to another level and trawls the gutter. If someone is offended by another person blessing themselves, the problem lies with the offended party. It certainly does not lie with the person expressing their faith.

Tanner appears almost offended by it himself. Perhaps he should reflect on why.

Let’s address the claims he made.

Celtic supporters stayed in a clearly defined area throughout the events. Even when some entered the pitch, they remained confined to that space. Tanner’s first act of dishonesty was to claim that Celtic supporters approached the Ibrox fans first. That is false.

His second claim was that Ibrox supporters were contained. That is also false. There were not enough police or stewards to cover the three stands involved. Supporters poured from those stands onto the sidelines without restriction. Fans from the two main stands reached our fans even before the larger pitch invasion began.

Tanner also claimed that Celtic supporters tried to break the crossbar. That allegation has no evidence behind it. His attempt to blame the Green Brigade for that supposed behaviour is equally baseless. The fact that he feels comfortable accusing the Green Brigade without a shred of proof says everything about the credibility of his commentary.

Another claim he made was that Celtic supporters attempted to reach Ibrox fans crossing the pitch wearing masks and carrying weapons. That is also untrue and you can see that from the police line. Which way was that line facing, Tanner?

Tanner is the worst offender, but he is not the only one shaping a narrative that places blame on Celtic supporters.

Tom English produced a similarly disgraceful article for the BBC. He began by suggesting that restoring Celtic’s full ticket allocation was a serious mistake.

This argument contains two fatal flaws.

First, much of the Scottish media has spent the last two seasons demanded the return of the full away allocation. They insisted the fixture had lost its intensity without it. Now they appear shocked when intensity returns.

Second, the away support was not responsible for the violence.

It was not Celtic supporters who assaulted police officers and stewards. It was not Celtic supporters who attacked opposition players and staff. Those actions came from the home support. If anyone in the media believes those assaults were justified because Celtic supporters were on the pitch, they should say so openly. I would welcome the debate.

Celtic supporters entered the pitch at the end opposite where the penalties were taken. Players from both teams had gathered at that end to watch the shootout. Our supporters posed no threat to anyone.

Some Celtic players ran over to celebrate with them and take photographs. That was the extent of our “pitch invasion” and the involvement of players in it. Had those supporters simply been escorted back to the stands, none of this would be a story today.

The violence only began when home supporters invaded the pitch and attempted to reach the Celtic section. Blaming the away support or the away allocation for that is not analysis.

It is misrepresentation.

English then claims that “many, many” Celtic supporters invaded the pitch. That is another exaggeration.

At most a couple of hundred supporters entered the field. Around 7,500 Celtic supporters were present in the stadium and the overwhelming majority remained in the stands. English describes that group as “many supporters” while describing the Ibrox supporters who attempted to invade the pitch as a “small number.”

Even if his claim were accurate, which it is not, it was that allegedly small number who initiated the violence. English fails to acknowledge that.

He also claims police pushed back the first attempt by Ibrox supporters to reach Celtic fans. Video footage contradicts that claim. Supporters from two stands attempted to reach Celtic fans both on and off the pitch. The footage proving this – filmed from inside the Celtic end – exists. Anyone can watch it.

English also writes that more Celtic supporters entered the field afterwards. That may be true, but it was still nowhere near the numbers he implies.

The most cowardly part of his article concerns the assaults on Celtic staff.

English writes that footage of the incidents involving the Celtic coach and a member of staff is inconclusive and requires further examination. Everyone saw what happened. Attempting to claim uncertainty is nothing more than a refusal to state the obvious.

He even suggested that the blood on Cvancara’s shirt may have resulted from an incident in the tunnel. That theory collapses when you look at the footage shot by Ibrox fans, showing their fellow supporters pouring a torrent of abuse on our players. Cvancara’s shirt was already bloodied as he walked up the tunnel.

The only reason the cameras captured that moment was because the protective tunnel was not in place when it should have been.

English also speculates that the violence was caused by ultras despite providing no evidence for that claim. At the same time he avoids discussing what the footage clearly shows.

These are the same journalists who believe they can lecture Celtic supporters about morality. Throughout the season they adopt the “three wise monkeys” approach to the hatred that pours out of the Ibrox stands. They ignore the chants, the hostility and the repeated incidents involving Celtic players, staff and supporters.

STV News joined the chorus by claiming that Celtic supporters provoked the violence simply by entering the pitch.

There is that provocation argument again. Fans enter the pitch across world football every season. It happens regularly in Scotland as well. The only unique element on Sunday was the response from sections of the home support.

Andy Halliday added his voice on Radio Clyde, reportedly claiming that Celtic supporters reached the centre circle. That claim is ridiculous.

A police line stood in front of the penalty area at the Celtic end of the pitch. Supporters remained behind it. Had Celtic supporters reached the centre circle they would have been standing in the middle of a crowd of masked men carrying weapons.

Clearly that did not happen.

So, if Halliday made that claim, it is simply another lie.

John McGarry used his column in the Daily Mail to complain that neither of the clubs “involved” has yet issued a statement. I agree with him only in the narrowest sense. If someone attacks you in the street there are two parties to the assault: you and the aggressor. That fact does not create the equivalence his article suggests.

I also agree with him about Celtic not issuing a statement. They should. It will hopefully contain more facts than his article or any of the others could be bothered to produce, and it will hopefully direct condemnation exactly where it belongs.

The media can spin events however it wishes. They can deflect and manufacture false equivalence. They can throw up whatever smokescreens they like.

What they cannot do is invent facts, and lie.

After Tanner’s commentary and English’s article appeared, I wrote on social media that anyone who lies about Celtic supporters should expect scrutiny and criticism. If you lie about our supporters, you deserve the response you receive.

English quickly disabled comments on his account.

He fired his shots and then hid.

That gesture sums up Tom English perfectly.

There is a moment in Oliver Stone’s film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps where Gordon Gekko responds to an accusation that he has been talking about someone behind their back.

His reply seems appropriate here.

“If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”

The Scottish media has been so warned.

Choose The CelticBlog as a “Preferred Source” on Google News for quick access to the news you value.