Celtic plans ban for Poppy protesters

The more I think of it, the less I like the idea that our players are being forced by Hodgson to wear the poppy next weekend.

Will we be kitted out in red-noses for comic relief?  or yellow kits and bandages for children in need?

Not wise and I don't agree with it but they have the right to do it. This is just another chapter in the long saga of the Old Firm, it will continue for aslong as they both keep raising their kids like this, both sides are as bad as each other. Take that for someone who has to listen to the bile they produce on a daily basis.

But fully expected and its always a problem this time of year at Celtic Park.

And as I'm sure you're all aware the club have agreed to wear the poppy on their shirt.

^ You could argue similar things about wearing black armbands for the death of members of the Royal Family etc.

^ You could argue similar things about wearing black armbands for the death of members of the Royal Family etc.

Agreed, black armbands for football related deaths only.

The sad thing about the whole saga is today as we argue innocent lives are lost on both sides of the war in the poppy fields of afghanistan.

I dont see any difference from the muslim extremist who wanted to march at wotten basset to highlight the plight of the innocent civilians in the theaters of war or the fans that held the banners at parkhead.

I dont see any difference from the muslim extremist who wanted to march at wotten basset to highlight the plight of the innocent civilians in the theaters of war or the fans that held the banners at parkhead.

I disagreed with those extremists (as most people do) and certainly don't think they help the image of Islam in the UK, but they have the right to march to voice their views - just not in that particular area.

Am I the only one who supports the supporter's actions?

Probably not vitez but for different reasons maybe. Their actions are based solely on sectarianism - is your support?

Check this out:

http://www.hellfire-corner.demon.co.uk/celtic.htm

Unlike the romantic roots of the Club, the link between Celtic and the 1st World War has yet to be fully explored. Yet to ignore it is to deny football fans the world over access to another major part of Celtic's unique social history.

For example, Willie Angus who signed for Celtic in 1911 and played for the team during seasons 1912-13 and 1913-14 became the first ever Scottish Territorial soldier to win the Victoria Cross.

Willie won his VC on June 12th, 1915 in Givenchy. He lost an eye, damaged a foot and was wounded 40 times in the process of successfully rescuing Lt James Martin, a fellow native of Willie's home town of Carluke who was lying injured a couple of feet away from the German front lines. A visit to the Willie Angus website gives the reader the full details of his deed and provides a unique insight into his truly amazing story. Needless to say Willie never played for Celtic again after this.

There were other Celts who fought and unlike Willie never made it back to Blighty. Of the 908,371 British and Commonwealth soldiers killed during the Great 1914-18 War, 7 of them were on the books of Celtic.

I guess the protesters, in their bitterness, can't see the wood for the trees. Maybe they don't mind pissing on the memory of former Celts? Shame on them and their bitter, sectarian agenda.

Hail hail.

Its a whole load of poppycock if you ask me 

I believe in freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to go onto someone's private property and start protesting or shooting your mouth off - if you do they can ask you to leave.  Freedom of speech stops government censorship, it does not give you a blanket right to protest wherever and whenever you want.

Again - I don't think there should be pressure on football clubs to wear a poppy, even though I support the campaign myself. However, the supporters should have made their statement outside the ground and the club has every right to ban them.

Correct, Celtic have every right to ban people.  I've touched on this, it's not freedom of speech.  It's freedom of protest and freedom of protest does give you that right, however as it's taken place on private property I've agreed 100% that Celtic can exercise their own right to ban people for no reason other than "because it's my property".  They don't however have the right to press criminal charges.

If they attacked military targets, I'd respect their cause whether I agreed or not.  But these are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists who indiscriminately kill innocent men, women and children.

How are you people clued in to the agenda going on in the press which is generally negative and dismissive towards LFC and in particular our last manager because he's a nasty foreigner but don't see it when it comes to war, the use of the word terrorism and general disregard to anyone with a different belief.

I'm glad you were not in charge of planning the Battle of Britain or D-Day... you are the Roy Hodgson of military planning...

If I had been in charge, I'd have not got us involved in the war.  So there'd be no need to plan the Battle of Britain or D-Day.  Prevention is better than cure.

Because I don't know of any plumber who has died in the line of duty, fighting for my freedom.  Maybe a few have got a little damp from a leaky pipe...

The analogy is simple.  These people are simply doing their job cleaning up other people's sh*t, praise none of them or praise them all.  You'd probably be dead without those plumbers installing sewerage and irrigation systems from diseases.

Nonsense.  Legitimate military campaigns aim to avoid civilian casualties and it is an unavoidable tragedy when civilians die, freedom fighters also avoid civilians and target the military.  Terrorists on the other hand aim to kill civilians.  If you can't see that distinction, there is no point in this discussion.

Bollocks, peace aims to avoid civilian casualties.  I propose to you this question: who is to decide what is a "legitimate" military campaign and what isn't a "legitimate" military campaign?  To claim that civilian deaths during time of war are unavoidable is spot on 100% correct which begs the question, why not eliminate that risk completely by not going to war.  The term terrorist is fast becoming the most misused word in the English language (you've had your time ironic, it was good while it lasted).  

Using your reasoning, a freedom fighter attacks military targets killing people in the process, but you respect their cause.  A terrorist attacks civilian targets also killing people in the process, you condemn them.  This baffles me.  Both freedom fighters and terrorists are killing people, how is one more worthy of praise or any better than the other?

I find it interesting that like you said that no mention is being made to supporting a more universal cause but instead to one with a distinct, underlying political connotation to it.  Either remove all politics from the field (ideal), extend the politics to everyone equally or don't criticise other people (ie. the protesters) for making this a political issue.

I'm muslim and dont support the wars in afganstan andiraq BUT I also understand that soldiers do not have a choice in were they are sent. They dont get to chose the wars they fight and if they do then they are branded as being un-patriotic or a coward by the very people who send them to war under false pretences and then hide behind a facade of prinicple and moral values.

All wars kill innocent people regardless of how hard you try not to and then there are the actions of soldiers who show themselves to be no more then sadistic individuals who treat war as a game in which they get to kill for real. You only have to look at some of the videos from wikileaks to know this true.

I have given to the poppy appeal and as I type my poppy is sitting on my keyboard in front of me. I CHOOSE not to wear it because for me its image has been tarnished, not by the soldiers but by those who on the one hand tell us we should we should respect the fallen and the wounded whilst at the same time showing a total disregard for those same individuals by sending them into a war on the back of false information and lies and then forget about them when they return and fight it difficult to fit back into society.

I dont agree with the celtic fans, there are ways of protesting and that was not it. As someone said earlier there is no place for it sport.

Someone said in post on here (and I'd qoute it but can't find now) "football builds a bound between supporters" and I've been thinking about my own experiances in recent times. Ever since 9/11, 7/7 and other events, as muslim I feel like people in the street look at you in a differant way, maybe its just me being paranoid but it feels like those events have changed peoples perceptions of us so much that they see all muslims as being terrorists and brand our religion as being evil. And I agree that there muslims out there like anjum choudary who dont exactly make life any easier by wanting to march through wootton basset but should we all be judged on the actions of a few? However, all of this aside, I have never felt like this when going to anfield. In there I'm treated with as much respect as the white person next to me, and thats what I love about football. And thats why politics should be left at the gates of a ground. For those 90mins, its a chance for people like me, the working man to just enjoy somethjing that gives pleasure to so many (aside from woy woeful tactics)

I've also been told that there is a way to support our troops but dissaccoiate yourself from the current wars and thats through wearing a white poppy. Thats something I'm going to look at.

How are you people clued in to the agenda going on in the press which is generally negative and dismissive towards LFC and in particular our last manager because he's a nasty foreigner but don't see it when it comes to war, the use of the word terrorism and general disregard to anyone with a different belief.

Sorry... when did Benitez blow up aeroplanes...?

If I had been in charge, I'd have not got us involved in the war.  So there'd be no need to plan the Battle of Britain or D-Day.  Prevention is better than cure.

of course, because Hitler was just going to stop at Calais and wave to us.

The analogy is simple.  These people are simply doing their job cleaning up other people's sh*t, praise none of them or praise them all.  You'd probably be dead without those plumbers installing sewerage and irrigation systems from diseases.

That analogy is ludicrous.  They are not putting their lives on the line.

Bollocks, peace aims to avoid civilian casualties.  I propose to you this question: who is to decide what is a "legitimate" military campaign and what isn't a "legitimate" military campaign?  To claim that civilian deaths during time of war are unavoidable is spot on 100% correct which begs the question, why not eliminate that risk completely by not going to war. 

Your naivety is breathtaking.  You can disagree with certain wars, but not war in general - it is sometimes necessary.

Using your reasoning, a freedom fighter attacks military targets killing people in the process, but you respect their cause.  A terrorist attacks civilian targets also killing people in the process, you condemn them.  This baffles me.  Both freedom fighters and terrorists are killing people, how is one more worthy of praise or any better than the other?

A man is in your home, about to rape your wife.  You kill him.
A man is in the street, minding his own business. You kill him.

Though you have killed a man in both instances, the context is totally different.  One of those is justified, the other isn't, I'll let you try and work out which is which.

Kumbaya.

I've also been told that there is a way to support our troops but dissaccoiate yourself from the current wars and thats through wearing a white poppy. Thats something I'm going to look at.

Great post mate, +

For more info on the white poppy - http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/

Great post mate, +

For more info on the white poppy - http://www.ppu.org.uk/poppy/

Thanks for the info and for the +.

If I had been in charge, I'd have not got us involved in the war.  So there'd be no need to plan the Battle of Britain or D-Day.  Prevention is better than cure.

Good thing you weren't in charge then, or we'd all be speaking German and raising our glasses ''TO ZE FUHRER''.

Once again sectarianism comes to the forefront of the Old Firm.  As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, that banner was disgusting and only used to rile more bitter hatred amongst others.  Fair play to Celtic FC though for banning the protesters and wearing the poppies anyway.

In terms of wearing a poppy though, IMO it is a personal choice and probably something that should be left to one's own desire to wear it voluntarily out in the street.  I really don't understand how or why anyone would refuse to wear one but as there are clearly those that do, in a collective sense, maybe its best left out of football.  Still doesn't defend some Celtic fans and their actions though.

Sorry... when did Benitez blow up aeroplanes...?

Never.  Doesn't stop both being beaten with the same tired clichés.
 

of course, because Hitler was just going to stop at Calais and wave to us.

Why did he stop at Switzerland, Sweden, Spain?  The UK declared war on Germany.

That analogy is ludicrous.  They are not putting their lives on the line.

You're right.  In that case, I'd like a thank you for miners day please.

Your naivety is breathtaking.  You can disagree with certain wars, but not war in general - it is sometimes necessary.

War is necessary, I agree 100%.  There needs to be a war to separate religion from politics, a war against racism and a war against greed.  Win those three and you'd probably find that it isn't all that necessary.

A man is in your home, about to rape your wife.  You kill him.
A man is in the street, minding his own business. You kill him.

Though you have killed a man in both instances, the context is totally different.  One of those is justified, the other isn't, I'll let you try and work out which is which.

Kumbaya.

Yes, killing should be condoned or justified but only if it suits your agenda.  Do you not realise the sheer hypocrisy of this?

Good thing you weren't in charge then, or we'd all be speaking German and raising our glasses ''TO ZE FUHRER''.

Once again sectarianism comes to the forefront of the Old Firm.  As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, that banner was disgusting and only used to rile more bitter hatred amongst others.  Fair play to Celtic FC though for banning the protesters and wearing the poppies anyway.

In terms of wearing a poppy though, IMO it is a personal choice and probably something that should be left to one's own desire to wear it voluntarily out in the street.  I really don't understand how or why anyone would refuse to wear one but as there are clearly those that do, in a collective sense, maybe its best left out of football.  Still doesn't defend some Celtic fans and their actions though.

You should learn about history before commenting on it - the UK declared war on Germany.  I'm agreeing with you 100% that sectarianism, religion, politics etc. has no place in football, but you can't bend the rules to say "well wearing a poppy is fine because it suits my agenda" so we either come to draw the conclusion that: a) politics is ok in football; b) politics is only ok in football if the majority agree.  My only support for those Celtic fans doing what they did is that they took a stand against a political campaign not this particular political campaign, albeit they did so for different reasons.

Keep it relatively on topic, and fit for the General Football board.

1. Was it right for the fans to bring what is a non-football club related matter in to a stadium?
2. Are Celtic right to ban those involved?

1. No.  As far as I can see if I was vehemently against making new nuclear weapons I would not choose to protest this at Anfield.
2. For me, they are perfectly within their right as I believe the SFA have rules against political banners inside stadiums.

Keep it relatively on topic, and fit for the General Football board.

1. Was it right for the fans to bring what is a non-football club related matter in to a stadium?
2. Are Celtic right to ban those involved?

1. No.  As far as I can see if I was vehemently against making new nuclear weapons I would not choose to protest this at Anfield.
2. For me, they are perfectly within their right as I believe the SFA have rules against political banners inside stadiums.

but the fans didn't bring this up, the club did by planning to put a poppy on their shirts

Why did he stop at Switzerland, Sweden, Spain?  The UK declared war on Germany.

Switzerland collaborated, Spain was an ally and Hitler did not need to occupy Sweden at that time as he was receiving iron ore and used the country to attack Norway.

Yes, killing should be condoned or justified but only if it suits your agenda.  Do you not realise the sheer hypocrisy of this?

defending your wife as she is about to be raped is now an agenda?

Turning in to a Current Affairs topic this.

The point is this was displayed at a football match.  Not an anti-war march.  For me, and I'd imagine most people - it has absolutely no place in a football stadium and I agree that Celtic are quite within their rights to ban people for displaying such stuff on what is, essentially, private property.

Especially as the chairman is none other than Dr John Reid

Switzerland collaborated, Spain was an ally and Hitler did not need to occupy Sweden at that time as he was receiving iron ore and used the country to attack Norway.

This is the last post I'll make on this topic; a) because it's off-topic enough already and b) because of the complicated relationship during wars and the nature of underhanded deals, nothing is ever so black and white and this could very easily become a 500 page thread about the history of WWII and the complexity of international relations.  All three remained neutral (no, Spain wasn't an ally of the Axis) for one reason or another or didn't feel the need to get involved as they had nothing to gain.

defending your wife as she is about to be raped is now an agenda?

That's not an agenda as such, but the example I made was more to ask the question that "when does it become an agenda and when is it justified".  I find the line is too blurry to say "well it's ok to kill in this war, but not ok to kill in that war", I think it's more reasonable to draw the line and say people killed in the act of war isn't ok or all people killed in the act of war is ok because at least it's consistent and not subject to bias.

Another three possibilities:
c) could end up in a 500 page topic about philosophical conundrums.
d) we continue this in another more appropriate thread (I'm happy with the either philosophical conundrums or WWII international relations, both interest me).
e) talk football in another thread.

To help steer the topic back on track:

Poppies are awesome.

Poppies are awesome.

Poppies are rubbish.  

Poppies are crap.   

I'm going to bloody well shoot you in a minute.  Get back in the Martin Kelly thread, we were agreeing there.  In fact, I was building on your ideas like a team.  You know the thing we've been playing somewhat like recently?

I think a white poppy is more appropriate for Celtic tbh. I don't think they will ban the Green Brigade(who were responsible for the banners). They will get a written warning about political displays on Celtic property as a Celtic park regular as I can't get down to Anfield every week due to age/money I would say that Celtic have had to come out and say bannings will happen to keep the image of club good.