Bernard Higgins - Yes or No?

Cairnsybhoy79

Well-known member
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
Spot on
Their view is to appoint the prick and he’ll be tasked with cleaning out the dissenting voices in the GB
No so sure about that tbh its one thing saying when he was a cop he had to do cop things but being an employee of our club to just target the more militant in our support thats a no go area if that were to happen then parkhead will be half empty every game the boards a shower of arseholes but they won't cut they're nose off to spite us
 

Smelltheg-love

Well-known member
No so sure about that tbh its one thing saying when he was a cop he had to do cop things but being an employee of our club to just target the more militant in our support thats a no go area if that were to happen then parkhead will be half empty every game the boards a shower of arseholes but they won't cut they're nose off to spite us
There’s no way this board would be that cynical or devious right enough 🤣
 

MickyMcMick

Well-known member
I pay very little attention to politics can’t be arsed with the bullshitting windbags so I know next to nothing about this Bernard Higgins fellow but as he seems to be somewhat unpopular might I suggest Bernard Cribbins as an alternative surely one of the least offensive people on the planet he could even organise a post match litter pick around the stadium and get away with it 😜
 

Ally

Well-known member
I pay very little attention to politics can’t be arsed with the bullshitting windbags so I know next to nothing about this Bernard Higgins fellow but as he seems to be somewhat unpopular might I suggest Bernard Cribbins as an alternative surely one of the least offensive people on the planet he could even organise a post match litter pick around the stadium and get away with it 😜
I'm sure the railway children would give a hand.😀
 

Torrancetim

Well-known member
Over the years, we've bought a few players who have an association with that mob.

One thing I've found, is that as long as they apply themselves properly, then we (the fans) have no issue with their former affiliations.

I'm not sure if this could ever be the case with appointing someone who was responsible for seriously affecting the lives, job prospects and relationships of much more than just a handful of Celtic fans.

After the appointment of Higgins - how long will it be before influential and vocal dissenters amongst the Celtic fan base find themselves being issued with lifetime bans for some trumped up reason?

The board have made their feelings known regarding certain groups, would it stretch reason to believe that they wouldn't have a desire to extinguish these protesters before perhaps these separate groups put some of their differences behind them and form a collective which could genuinely affect change?

Head of security? You'd be as well as calling him a hit man as his principal role will be to silence the more vocal elements of our support.

In saying that - sometimes you need something really, really awful to happen to actually force folk to unite together. That's why I believe that the GB would become reinforced and stronger once Higgins is appointed and starts his cull.

The night gets darkest before dawn.
SP nailed it brother
 

Humf

Well-known member
Are you perhaps looking for links to the SMSM?

I’m sure you would know how to find them, wouldn’t you?...
I assume that he supported it. You're right and I will google, but thought there might be a definitive one.

I would have thought that as a public servant that he would have to stay neutral in such cases.

But I'll do my homework and get back. Oh,and my own view is that I opposed the act at the time. I'm sure even sheriff said it was "mince"!
 

Imatim

Well-known member
I assume that he supported it. You're right and I will google, but thought there might be a definitive one.

I would have thought that as a public servant that he would have to stay neutral in such cases.

But I'll do my homework and get back. Oh,and my own view is that I opposed the act at the time. I'm sure even sheriff said it was "mince"!

Hopefully when you get back it will not be with a link to the SMSM.....that would be too transparently obvious, don’t you think?...
 

Humf

Well-known member
Hopefully when you get back it will not be with a link to the SMSM.....that would be too transparently obvious, don’t you think?...
This a part of an article, (in bold), from the Glasgow Herald (11 Sept 2017). I've copied but not posted the link. In all honesty apart from being a policeman upholding, (albeit a crass piece of legislation) I, personally, am not totally offended. In saying that I also hold a view that it would be unwise to appoint him at our club.

Ironically what is more interesting, in the last paragraph where it states that Peter Lawell had a "long standing" opposition to the original legislation. You'd think that someone at Parkhead with a brain cell would have said way back at the beginning when the job came up that, even for good PR, that we keep BH away from the position.

Bernard Higgins, yes or no? It's a no for me!


"Whilst UEFA policy may prohibit political expression within the context of a football match within their control, Scottish law does not. Mr Higgins, therefore, is not simply fulfilling his role as Assistant Chief Constable by advocating that fans abide by the law, but he in fact goes well beyond that, relying on his own personal views and tastes to attempt to restrict the political expression of citizens of a modern European democracy in 2017.

"At best, this is unwise but at its worst it is a grotesque abuse of his position. One simply cannot imagine Mr Higgins urging any other group of society to refrain from indulging in political expression and it is a matter of grave concern that he has chosen to publicly censure supporters in this manner."

FAC concluded: "There is no evidence of any significant problem with disorder in Scottish football grounds in absolute terms or, as it happens, in comparison with other similarly-sized public events, like concerts. In terms of behaviour which could constitute hate crime either in terms of religion or other factors, clearly the overwhelming majority of this behaviour takes place in places other than football stadia.


"On that basis we are clear that there was never any genuine, substantive basis for new legislation which affected only football fans."

Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins was unrepentant over his stance saying: “Over the years I have policed many events where political views have been expressed. That is what we do in a democracy. There is a massive difference between expressing a political view or supporting a terrorist organisation.
“If FAC want to sit down with me I will happily explain my position and reasons for it, however I would reiterate that any person showing support for a terrorist organisation should expect my officers to act, and thereafter it will be a matter for the Scottish courts to decide.”

The FAC's strong comes as both Celtic and a prominent academic accused the Scottish Government of misrepresenting their views in a bid to boost support for keeping the Act.

Dr John Kelly, of Edinburgh University, said legal affairs minister Annabelle Ewing had taken comments he made in 2011 “out of context” to give the impression he supported the Act.

And Celtic said it was “extremely disappointed” the government had used a six-year-old quote from its chief executive Peter Lawell in a “clear misrepresentation of its "long-standing” opposition to the legislation.
 

Imatim

Well-known member
This a part of an article, (in bold), from the Glasgow Herald (11 Sept 2017). I've copied but not posted the link. In all honesty apart from being a policeman upholding, (albeit a crass piece of legislation) I, personally, am not totally offended. In saying that I also hold a view that it would be unwise to appoint him at our club.

Ironically what is more interesting, in the last paragraph where it states that Peter Lawell had a "long standing" opposition to the original legislation. You'd think that someone at Parkhead with a brain cell would have said way back at the beginning when the job came up that, even for good PR, that we keep BH away from the position.

Bernard Higgins, yes or no? It's a no for me!


"Whilst UEFA policy may prohibit political expression within the context of a football match within their control, Scottish law does not. Mr Higgins, therefore, is not simply fulfilling his role as Assistant Chief Constable by advocating that fans abide by the law, but he in fact goes well beyond that, relying on his own personal views and tastes to attempt to restrict the political expression of citizens of a modern European democracy in 2017.

"At best, this is unwise but at its worst it is a grotesque abuse of his position. One simply cannot imagine Mr Higgins urging any other group of society to refrain from indulging in political expression and it is a matter of grave concern that he has chosen to publicly censure supporters in this manner."

FAC concluded: "There is no evidence of any significant problem with disorder in Scottish football grounds in absolute terms or, as it happens, in comparison with other similarly-sized public events, like concerts. In terms of behaviour which could constitute hate crime either in terms of religion or other factors, clearly the overwhelming majority of this behaviour takes place in places other than football stadia.


"On that basis we are clear that there was never any genuine, substantive basis for new legislation which affected only football fans."

Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins was unrepentant over his stance saying: “Over the years I have policed many events where political views have been expressed. That is what we do in a democracy. There is a massive difference between expressing a political view or supporting a terrorist organisation.
“If FAC want to sit down with me I will happily explain my position and reasons for it, however I would reiterate that any person showing support for a terrorist organisation should expect my officers to act, and thereafter it will be a matter for the Scottish courts to decide.”

The FAC's strong comes as both Celtic and a prominent academic accused the Scottish Government of misrepresenting their views in a bid to boost support for keeping the Act.

Dr John Kelly, of Edinburgh University, said legal affairs minister Annabelle Ewing had taken comments he made in 2011 “out of context” to give the impression he supported the Act.

And Celtic said it was “extremely disappointed” the government had used a six-year-old quote from its chief executive Peter Lawell in a “clear misrepresentation of its "long-standing” opposition to the legislation.

This cut & paste is really easy, isn’t it?.....all we need now is for kindred spirits to do the same.....don’t you agree?

Out of curiosity.....is there any particular reason (like 1 or 2 other regular posters) that you failed to make your condolences on the Bertie Auld RIP thread?...
 

Humf

Well-known member
This cut & paste is really easy, isn’t it?.....all we need now is for kindred spirits to do the same.....don’t you agree?

Out of curiosity.....is there any particular reason (like 1 or 2 other regular posters) that you failed to make your condolences on the Bertie Auld RIP thread?...
Are you and 1888 trying to infer something? If so, please be very clear about it. I actually enjoyed the Bertie Auld thread and (in part) let better people than me leave comments. There was no ulterior motive.
 

Members online

Top