An open letter to Darryl Broadfoot

Dear Darryl,

In the aftermath of a remarkable period in terms of bad blood between your favourite team and mine, let me address some of your recent commentaries in The Herald.

In today’s paper – available on the internet, of course – you spout forth on the actions of Artur Boruc, crassly, if indirectly, linking the wearing of a T-shirt depicting the late Pope John-Paul II to the death of a Celtic supporter attacked on Sunday night.

You also refer to a violent attack, quite possibly sectarian in motivation, on Aiden McGeady remarking, “Suddenly, stoking the fire does not seem such a smart idea, does it?”

Violence, Darryl – sometimes fatal – related to matches between Celtic and Rangers is sadly nothing new. It is something that most decent people abhor, making no distinction regarding the victims or perpetrators of such vile acts.

Yet, you chose not to make mention of the actions of Walter Smith, who, prior to the match, joined with Martin Bain in making direct personal attacks on Peter Lawwell and Celtic in general, scorning the integrity of the club and chief executive and claiming to have been directly disadvantaged by Lawwell’s intervention.

Not so long ago it was accepted that no-one associated with Celtic or Rangers would make any comment likely to raise tensions in the West of Scotland prior to such a match. You apparently seek to imply that Artur Boruc is responsible for fanning the flames yet, by implication of silence, absolve Walter Smith, a veteran of some 40 such encounters as Rangers manager and with an involvement going back 22 years.

Do you think it might have been better for Smith and Bain to have used more temperate language? Why did you make no direct remark on this, other than to add to the “point-scoring” furore?

You also caricature Artur Boruc as a “pantomime villain,” guilty of “overt symbolism,” “antagonism,” “wreaking havoc,” and “selfishness… using football grounds, as a soap box for his beliefs”. That’s a hell of a T-shirt.

It must also be said that your use of the term “granting an audience” in relation to an interview with Boruc is wholly inappropriate. I’ll credit you with the ability to know why.

Has it ever occurred to you or your colleagues to properly challenge the “FTP brigade” who so berated Boruc and reported him to the police for having the temerity to make the sign of the cross at Ibrox Park? Was there a word of condemnation in The Herald when fans at Ibrox displayed a banner degrading Boruc on the grounds of his Catholicism, with the words “Voodoo no worky"?

Apparently not, even though it has been claimed that the banner in question was commissioned by The (non-sectarian) Blue Order, is similar in style to others used by that organisation and appeared in an area used by the group, once the bane of Ibrox officialdom but now quoted as part of the “Follow with Pride” campaign:
“Davie Macintosh of The Blue Order said: ‘I'm really looking forward to hearing the singing even more this season and I'm sure all the fans will be right behind the new Follow With Pride campaign. We are really going to up the anti in terms of stadium atmosphere this season with a few new plans of our own including using megaphones and each stand having its own design of flag.’"

I suspect that the lack of attention to such matters is due to the fact that you, like the majority of Scottish football journalists, seem to consider yourself one of the arbiters of common sense when it comes to defining who has a right to be offended by what and how much.

Then again, derision aimed at Catholicism and Scotland’s Irish community, e.g. the recent song with the words “the famine’s over, why don’t you go home” is routinely displayed by Rangers supporters with barely a line noting its occurrence in the mainstream media.

Despite quoting chapter and verse of the relevant legislation pertaining to Boruc’s T-shirt, and implying that FIFA had been asked to intervene, you conspicuously failed to reference the numerous FIFA and UEFA directives breached by Rangers supporters – and by implication the club – at a significant proportion of the club’s games.

But, Darryl, this is where I have trouble fathoming either what your standpoint is or, perhaps more properly, what inspired The Herald to appoint you as “Chief Football Writer”.

Just last week, you assumed the role of social commentator, scorning people such as yourself (“log-on looneys”, I believe you then called them), “who seek a form of internet-driven infamy; the kind who have taken to inconveniencing UEFA every Monday morning with their pathetic reel of YouTube one-upmanship”.

“Internet idiots are drowning out right-thinking Old Firm majority”, blasted the headline, as you declared “the internet age has spawned a new strain of Old Firm idiocy. Untraceable and unaccountable [We’ll come back to that], this is the evolution of the bampot.”

The “intelligent, reasoned follower of Old Firm fortunes”, you claimed, has had “concise and cerebral arguments drowned out by feverish and irrational proclamations”.

You grossly exaggerated the response of Celtic supporters to Rangers fans unfurling yet another illegal and racist banner at a UEFA Cup match, where the entire ticket allocation had been controlled by the club. You then referred to “the hidden meaning behind ‘Nakamura Ate My Dog’.”

“Racist, discriminatory, the SFA must act was the gist. Are we to assume Celtic's sublimely gifted and profoundly intelligent midfielder has endured sleepless nights over a banner that is not only inaccurate but, given his limited grasp of English, probably lost on him?

“Do we even have to point out that Japanese don't eat dog meat?”

I am sure, Darryl, given your own grasp of English – and a few other usual characteristics of the broadsheet writer – the irony was lost on you but that very night a courageous, gifted and respected journalist, Rageh Omaar, presented the third part of “Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth”. I suggest you watch it before you deign to make any further pronouncements on social cohesion and the acceptable face of racism.

Omaar refers to tabloid headlines accusing Eastern European immigrants of eating swans and relates this common gruesome stereotyping of foreigners to his experience of stories claiming that his fellow Somalis ate donkeys.

The Polish journalist Omaar spoke to said such stories appalled her when faced with the realisation that British journalists “perceive us as wild animals”.

But perhaps we shouldn’t take that seriously. After all, a writer of your standing has already illustrated how the “right-minded majority” should feel, according to their command of English and certain perceptions of what constitutes offensive racism – as opposed to the other kind.

And you clearly feel qualified to pass judgement on Artur Boruc – an immigrant Polish Catholic (and probably, Darryl, the best goalkeeper in the world, in case you can yet be jolted back into the dark realms of sports reporting) who does not easily accept the derision of people who consider themselves to be the natural majority in this country.

“A clear distinction must be drawn between real Old Firm supporters and the plankton who contribute nothing but embarrassment to their respective clubs,” you say, “Those who seek a form of internet-driven infamy”.

There is another clear distinction: “between real journalists and the plankton who contribute nothing but embarrassment to their respective titles” internet-driven infamy being a felicitous side-issue.

Let’s return to fulfilling my promise. “Untraceable and unaccountable,” you say. Well, we could debate who has a right to spout their utterances on the Internet, as you do, and the concept of identity. Does a believable name carry greater weight than one obviously meant to denote an identity without claims that any related passport or driving licence is registered?

Is it more honest to be declared as Darryl Broadfoot than “One Star Means More”, “Fat Eck”, “Hector Bandido”, “Murphio”, “GrandMaster Suck” or “Paul 67”?

What about “Martin McMillan”, “Derek Miller” et al, who beef up the pages of The Herald without indication that they are just two of many Herald "writers" who do not even exist? What about the Herald writer whose reports are listed as “at Stamford Bridge” but who really watches the matches on satellite TV?

The point is, Darryl, if I really have to articulate it, that perhaps we should all try to evaluate what we do, where we are, how the hell we got here and what shaped our perspectives objectively (if we possibly can), lest we face charges of hypocrisy.

Alternatively, rather than taking to the keyboards to attack people and suggest sanctions against them, for example Artur Boruc or those non-journalists who dare to speak, some of us should, as Mr Lincoln advocated, “remain silent and be thought a fool” rather than have our utterances remove all doubt.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside Scotland: Sport without religious controversy