Scottish Government statistics on banning orders proof existing laws work

In a week when the topic of behaviour at football grounds has been dominating the headlines of organisations such as the BBC, STV, The Daily Record and The Scottish Sun... I stumbled upon an article in the 13th November edition of the Scotland on Sunday which has strangely gone unnoticed by the majority of the mainstream media. The headlines of these four organisations have focused mainly on Celtic and its fans, with a police force employee never far away from explaining that new laws are necessary to tackle the problem of offensive chanting at the club. The article in the Scotland on Sunday reported new statistics released which show that more than double the amount of Football Banning Orders (FBOs) have been issued to Rangers fans in comparison to Celtic fans. FBOs are used in the fight against criminal behaviour relating to football with most being issued for violent and sectarian offences. Let me be clear, I'm not trying to paint Rangers in a bad light but it's curious that in the wake of these statistics being released that Strathclyde Police have gone on an week long offensive against The Green Brigade and the rest of the Celtic support when this group of people only face punishment of sporting consequence in relation to the alleged singing. Why not focus on their own hard work in bringing supporters from all clubs to task for behaviour which goes over the line of existing legislation?

One hundred and seventy seven football banning orders have been issued since 2006 with fifty alone coming between April and October of 2011. Police forces nationwide are clearly applying existing laws in their crackdown against the problems which blight Scottish football. A question has to be asked that if FBOs are shown to be working in conjunction with convictions for violent and sectarian crimes across Scotland, what is the aim of the proposed Offensive Behaviour Bill? A Scottish Government evaluation of the FBOs concluded that the implementation of them is improving over time. Speaking to the Scotland on Sunday, Scottish Labour MSP and former police match commander Graeme Pearson said, "The biggest threat to a fan is not imprisonment, it is not being able to go and see his team. While everyone wants an end to the evils of sectarianism that is no excuse for poor legislation and there are huge concerns about the potential unintended negative consequences of the SNP’s plans. We must fully use the powers in place to deal with sectarianism before deciding whether there is need for further measures.” This common sense has been absent from most of the debate dominating the headlines recently.

It seems that the club and the fans themselves are now embroiled in a high stakes political dogfight which has relevance only in the corridors of Holyrood but has consequences for us all. The bill can't be seen to fail no matter how ugly it is turning out to be. The SNP and Strathclyde Police have set the tone in the media all week in pursuit of attaining credibility for the bill. Joe O'Rourke of the Celtic Supporters Association has stated tonight that statistics released tomorrow will show that most sectarian offences in Scotland relating to football happen at Celtic Park. Whether or not this is an attempt to further emphasise the need for new legislation through carefully placed spokesmen in the press remains to be seen. These statistics will appear only weeks after it emerged that records on sectarian crime in the period 2005 to 2009 have been destroyed. A previous study published taking some of these statistics into account showed around two-thirds of offences were directed against Catholics, with 80% of offences committed in Glasgow or Lanarkshire. The majority of these took place away from footballing activities. This week has been a masterclass demonstration from the Scottish Government in how to shape popular public opinion. It would be interesting to see other media organisations report on the FBOs in conjunction with these new statistics tomorrow and ask for comment on those opposed to the bill. Surely only then can the wider Scottish public form a balanced view on what is trying to be pushed through by the SNP? The language from all sides of this affair seems to be escalating by the day and the varying positions are only becoming deeper entrenched. It's time to have a grown up debate on the issues and not shower the influential mainstream media with one side of the argument. This only provokes defensive response from those you are claiming to try to engage.

You can find the full Scotland on Sunday article here: http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/politics/probe_into_celtic_fans_as_rangers_top_ban_league_1_1963278

You can find Joe O'Rourke's statement here: http://www.thecsa.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497

You can find a PDF document of a July 2011 Scottish Government evaluation of FBOs here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/354566/0119713.pdf

Returning from injury profile #1: Scott Brown

The Celtic first team squad this season has suffered from a number of long term injuries. While not the sole reason for poor results by any means it has no doubt had a detrimental effect on the team in the league campaign. As the squad returns to what would be considered full strength in the coming weeks I thought it would be a good time to look at the players who've been absent and how they fit into the Celtic first eleven. First up is the club captain Scott Brown.

Brown joined Celtic from Hibernian in 2007 for a record domestic transfer fee of £4.4m. It would only take two and a half years for a manager to name him captain of the club. Due to the large fee and reported high wages, in the region of £20-25k a week, Brown has always been under scrutiny from the Celtic support. It's fair to say that opinion is often divided on whether he should be starting nevermind be the captain. When Brown played for Hibernian he caught the eye as part of the talented team which included the likes of Steven Fletcher, Derek Riordan, Kevin Thomson and Gary O'Connor. He was a direct, attacking midfielder and while this didn't always result in goals for the player he brought urgency to a successful team, landing Hibs their first trophy in sixteen years.

When Gordon Strachan signed Brown this is what Celtic fans thought they were going to see. Instead Strachan utilised him as more of an athletic ball winner while the creativity and attacking urgency from Celtic came through the wide areas from players like Aiden McGeady and Shunsuke Nakamura. At times he would still try to burst forward but his attacking form was patchy throughout the year. Nevertheless his first season could be considered a success as Celtic won their third title in a row and qualified from the group stages in the Champions League for only the second time. Brown played a large part in that with forty-eight appearances in all competitions though many fans felt short changed when weighing up his performances with the large transfer fee. There are even some who argue that had Brown not been suspended and subsequently dropped for Paul Hartley and Barry Robson in April 2008 then the storming Celtic comeback which produced three in a row would never had happened. I've always felt this was a harsh assessment. It later emerged when she passed away in May 2008 that his sister had suffered from skin cancer throughout the season and it shows his strength of character that he managed to continue to play for Celtic at the highest club level without letting it effect his performances.

His second season saw Celtic lose their tight grip on the title to Rangers on the last day of the season. The grumblings from the fans continued regarding his ability, specifically in terms of passing the ball. This is obviously a key requisite for any footballer and especially in midfield. It's true to say that Brown doesn't possess the largest passing range of a player we've seen at Celtic. His energy in the middle of the park did win him fans though; his desire to be involved in every game and cover every blade of grass on a football pitch had to be admired. This energy was at times vital to a team which had become fairly ponderous and predictable. While Celtic didn't have as successful a season they had hoped for Brown certainly improved as a player, chipping in with some vital goals and a man of the match performance in the 2009 League Cup Final victory over Rangers. His improvement and contribution was acknowledged in the end of season awards when he won the 2009 Players' Player Of The Year; a recognition from his fellow professional that he was as tough an opponent as anyone they faced that season. It was also in 2009 that the first signs of his re-occuring ankle injury started to emerge when playing for Celtic with the player having to receive injections to see through the tail end of the season.

The opening months of Brown's season under Tony Mowbray were plagued by the ankle injury and he eventually required a long lay off between October and February to receive his second operation in six months on the joint. He returned as Celtic club captain and a month later when Neil Lennon took control of the shambles Mowbray had left behind this was about the only thing he didn't change. It's my opinion that this was the making of Scott Brown as a Celtic player. He clearly thrives on the responsibility and watching Celtic in the last eighteen months have convinced me he is as important a player for us as anyone in the squad.

Neil Lennon also shifted Brown from the middle two of a 4-4-2 formation to a slightly wider role on the right hand side. This gives Brown a little bit more freedom to make forward runs and play himself into the box. Arguably this is the role Brown should have had for Celtic ever since Strachan signed him in 2007. With his energy and stamina he can play this position for 90 minutes without tiring and can tuck in to a more central position when Celtic do not have possession, being the third man in a defensive midfield set-up. This means Celtic get the best of both sides of Scott Brown, the harassing interceptor and the pacy attacking midfielder. When Brown is in the middle he is hindered with positional responsibility and this is one of the biggest weaknesses of his game. He has also a great motivator on the pitch for Neil Lennon. This was memorably highlighted in the opening Rangers game of the 2011-12 season. With Celtic finding themselves 1-0 down it was Brown, playing with injury, who dragged Celtic into a winning position. A position they ultimately conceded in the second half as the visibily injured Brown deteriorated and had to be substituted. This has resulted in another period out of the team for the captain, who has had to have a third operation on his ankle. He's due to return in a couple of weeks and I'm positive he will continue progressing as a Celtic player and play an important role in clawing back the points deficit on Rangers. It's this type of player the team needs to win games by any means necessary.

As it stands any club can open contract negotiations with the player in six weeks time. He would be able to sign a pre-contract with a club to move in the Summer of 2012. It's claimed by Neil Lennon that the reason he has not yet signed an extension to the contract he signed with Celtic in 2007 is merely down to negotiation of his agent's fee. Brown has been in the press himself claiming he is desperate to stay at Celtic and sign a new contract. However, as time rolls on it becomes more and more of a worry that no contract has been signed. It would be madness to let Scott Brown leave for free regardless of your opinion on his ability. He was signed for £4.4m and to not see any return for that would be gross mismangement from the man in charge of contracts and recruitment at Celtic, Peter Lawwell. My only concern in handing him a new contract is the state of his ankle. Three operations in 2 years on one joint without any sign it won't flare up again could be viewed as bad news. Can it hold up playing two or three games a week going forward? Saying this, I am hoping Brown signs a new contract and stays for a long time. I believe the following years will see the best football of his career. Having shelled out so much to guarantee we get a shot at seeing this at Celtic Park it makes no sense for the club not to put their faith in him now, when we need him most.

Supporters' "illicit chanting" enters sporting context for Celtic

Over the weekend reports surfaced in the media that Celtic could face possible charges over chants coming from Celtic supporters in the game against Stade Rennais FC on 3rd November at Celtic Park. According to the reports it was a member or members of Strathclyde Police who had alerted the UEFA match delegate to the chants. The match delegate then filed a report with UEFA which would be damaging to the club and ensure a meeting took place to decide whether or not the Celtic fans had acted in a way which could bring sporting or financial penalties to the club. Today this was confirmed both by UEFA and Strathclyde Police. It then emerged in the Daily Record that the Strathclyde Police officer involved in the reporting to UEFA was former SPL referee Eddie Smith.

There are three distinct areas to explore in this whole matter all of which should be spoken seperately of each other. Firstly there is the matter of the behaviour of the fans at the game. Secondly there is the timing of Strathclyde Police suddenly taking the time to involve themselves in sporting matters when they have never done so before. Thirdly there is the inconsistency of UEFA in dealing with matters such as these and the implications should Celtic be found guilty of the charges. As the story has developed over the weekend there's been a tendency from some I've seen, from fans to media outlets, of focusing on one aspect of this affair and painting the whole picture around that element only. For example, completely ignoring the chants to focus on how the media has reported it or focusing only on the chants with absurd broad brushstrokes about the Celtic support.

It is believed that the song at the centre of UEFA's investigation is "The Celtic Symphony".  The song, written by The Wolfe Tones, is a staple of the support. It builds through a verse and chorus to a chant of "Ooh ahh up the 'Ra", the context in the song is of the writer seeing this as graffiti sprawled on a wall somewhere. In the song this is the only reference to Irish Republicanism. In recent years, especially at Celtic Park, the chorus has by and large started to fall away and by the time the chant comes around it is much quieter, with only a minority remaining to chant the line with gusto.

Whether or not you're still into the song by the time the chant comes round and giving it the "Ooh ahh's" is in my opinion, a personal choice. A personal choice like anything in life you wish to express within the boundaries of the law. I'm one of those supporters who gets into the song but falls away when it comes to the chorus, I have my own reasons for that. Perhaps I'm a laid back sort of chap but I'd wager the majority of people upon being exposed to the song wouldn't care about it's content and at the very most would think it's idiotic and in poor taste. Would they be offended? Unlikely. It's my opinion that society is far too desensitised to care about this song beyond mock outrage. It's not sectarian, it's not illegal, it's not even specific. You or others might think someone is morally wrong for singing it but are they really impacting on your life in such a way that you are offended it is sung? You have to think about that too as a Celtic fan when Rangers fans sing songs such as "A Father's Advice", a song which isn't racist or sectarian. I don't like it, I don't agree with it's content but I'm not offended. It's still widely heard at Rangers games. Both of these songs in my opinion are wildly different to other songs that have been censured by UEFA in the past, like The Billy Boys, which is illegal within the current remit of the law. It's perhaps your opinion that this kind of song doesn't belong at a football ground full stop. It's OK to think this and pontificate this thought and debate it. It's when you're trying to stop people from doing so with force and punishment that it's completely the wrong road to go down. What you'd essentially be doing is stopping someone from singing something which has no consequence at all beyond expressing a political ideal. Is that a reasonable thing to do? In my mind, it isn't.

The question you have to ask yourself when it comes to Strathclyde Police is... why now? "The Celtic Symphony" was written in 1987. Celtic have played around seventy European home games in that time. Why would you involve yourself in reporting a football club to a parent organisation when you've never done so before? Is it politically motivated? Well of course it is. The Scottish Government and the police forces themselves are desperate to rush the controversial Offensive Behaviour Bill through parliament so it becomes a reality sooner rather than later. Strathclyde Police like all police forces are also desperate to justify their funding and new measures brought in nationwide like the Football Policing Unit. It all seems to be an effort to control your average football fan in an age when policing is actually becoming more and more obsolete within sporting arenas. What better way to invigorate the 'need' for policing at football than to construct a scenario such as this? All that's needed to light the media fire is the slightest of hints that one of the big two football clubs in Scotland might be in trouble with UEFA over fans chanting. It won't even matter if UEFA throw this issue out at the disciplinary hearing, it's a job done for Strathclyde Police.

UEFA need to find a way of dealing with this that doesn't have consequences for themselves in the future. Truly if they wish to end political chanting at football games they will have to treat every football team in Europe with supporters who have political affiliations the same as they do Celtic. This seems an impossible task given the tendency of many fans of the sport to air politically diverse views in terraces around the continent. UEFA have targeted the club on the other side of the city before and even though it was, in my opinion, correct to do so, it would also be correct to target the fans of Chelsea... the fans of Real Madrid... the fans of Barcelona. All of these clubs have been guilty of racist chanting within the last 12 months. Is it easier to pinpoint Scotland because our issues are unique? If they target racism in Spain, they would need to do it in Russia and they would need to do it in France. When they tackled Rangers sectarian issue they only needed to do it in Scotland. The language within the rules and regulations does, strictly speaking, give scope to find Celtic fans guilty of infringement. However, they will think carefully before dealing with this issue as, in my opinion, the outcome should set a precedent in how clubs and supporters are treated by the governing body when expressing political ideology at football matches.

If, and I'll admit it's a big if, UEFA find Celtic fans guilty and impose a financial or sporting sanction upon Celtic it would undoubtedly divide the support further with regards to pro-Irish Republican chanting and singing in football grounds. In fact, I think it would be time to re-evaluate the songs that are sung and how we can move forward without hurting the sporting aspect of the club. As I've said, it's currently my opinion that singing the songs has no consequence beyond those that are made within the media or made by those pushing a political agenda. If UEFA deem the songs unacceptable and we wish to continue to play their game then there would be a direct sporting consequence. The club would need to be frank with fans' groups and open discussion about what's going on in the stands, finding out where people are coming from and what they would or would not be willing to stop singing. Self-regulation and making personal choices is a massively different proposition to police and government dictating what we can and can't do. With fair prior warning and elements eager to urge UEFA to use their powers it would be an own goal not to address the issue.