The Danny Simpson Dilemma

[SamTeàrlachH]

For some people this isn't even a dilemma.

In the mind of these people, Celtic should have nothing to do with Danny Simpson due to his conviction for assaulting his then-girlfriend and mother of his child. No questions asked. I completely sympathise with this position. I'm trying to imagine how I'd react if Celtic signed someone who had been convicted of, say, racist assault. Would I even call this hypothetical signing a 'dilemma'? Or would I flat out scoff and reject the idea?

I'm hardly religious, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all the rest of it. While there can never be any kind of justification for the actions of Simpson, shouldn't I practice what I preach? What Simpson did is not something that can be explained by someone like me or anyone else not directly related to the case , but shouldn't we look upon this as him having served his time, and one could argue he got off lightly compared to what your average wife-beater would get, and thus the guy deserves a 'second chance', so to speak. Or perhaps 'benefit of the doubt', as to his character and not to his guilt of the initial offence, is more adequate?

There are some who are judging Simpson purely on perceived merit - his footballing skills. Again, I can understand this. But whether you think he's good enough or not, are we the kind of club who would reject people who have made mistakes - yes, even criminal and despicable mistakes. Obviously there's a line. If Simpson had a persistent history of domestic abuse, I'd be firmly in the camp who would reject him out of hand. But what if we do sign him? Let's be honest, even within Celtic's current ranks, you'd find people who have made many mistakes in their personal life. Do we judge these people on their histories rather than how they are now or the role they play in our club? We absolutely do not. And nor should we. I know we scorned Sevco for signing the convicted wife-beater Jon Flanagan, but, and I count myself here, perhaps we were slightly guilty of falling into the trap of using that as ammunition against a club who we all, with very good reason, despise? That's not everyone - for some, I understand that they believe that people like Flanagan or Simpson should not be accepted at our football club. But here wider questions of the idea of reform vs constant vilification come into play - beyond Simpson and his past crimes.

I think, on reflection, if the Celtic management team believe Danny Simpson can do a job for us, we as fans must support him. Nothing made me more proud when, following the incident where video emerged of a young and intoxicated Leigh Griffiths sang a racist song sung about Rudi Skacel, the Green Brigade unveiled a banner saying 'A man must be a Celt on and off the field. Otherwise he is of no value to this club'. One of the reasons, outside of personal factors and questions of identity, I truly fell in love with Celtic as a football club is because we are a club who cares about things outside football. We do often involve ourselves with hard but righteous political questions, causes and issues. We do have, built into the bones of our club, an ethos of egalitarianism and anti-racism that stems from the fact that we are a club of refugees - of survivors of empire and all of its evils. Of a core community of people who still to this day face societal hatred and demonisation. Would a Sevco fan site ever have run such a brilliant and touching essay on the political context of Sarajevo, and the wider context of the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian fascists and Srebrenica in particular, as The Celtic Star did, if their club was to play them? Would the Billy Boys, the friends of Tommy Robinson, have done or considered anything remotely like this? Hardly any other fans of a football club in Europe would, let alone Scotland's very own social disease masquerading as a football club.

All of this is important. And when you look at the practical work Celtic ghirls have done to eradicate misogyny in football and make football more women-friendly very recently, perhaps their voice is most important when it comes to Simpson? Don't get me wrong, the club will sign him or reject him regardless of what we as fans think, but we do have a voice and we've seen this voice come into action at times when those who run our club have stepped over the mark. Some might say this voice is more quiet now than it was in the 1990s, when there was true turmoil gripping our club, but I think it would come roaring back if ever something egregiously unethical or corrupt was to happen.

All in all, and it might be that Simpson doesn't cut the mustard in terms of footballing quality, I'm leaning towards the camp of those who believe in giving people second chances and believing that people can make mistakes, including criminal ones, and be adequately reformed or deserving of the chance to prove themselves as reformed. I think that principle of forgiveness and contrition is part of the Celtic way as well.

 

[Spherical Planet]

From someone who has made more mistakes and errors of judgement than I care to remember, I very much have a foot in the camp of "second chances".

I sincerely believe that we are products of our own events and circumstances and that poor decision-making and unforced errors help to create the people we are and who we become. However - I also believe that to warrant those second, third, and fourth chances, then there has to be an acknowledgement and an acceptance of the mistake. There has to be some form of self-repentance that is not bestowed by a court of law, but by the court of personal accountability.

I don't know the circumstances related to Danny Simpson's conviction (and he was convicted), but I have yet to happen across his statement renouncing these actions, and it is that lack of self-awareness which I have a major issue with.

I hope that I just haven't searched hard enough and that somewhere out there, there is a clear and bold statement denouncing any act of domestic violence against women, children or men.

If Danny Simpson wants to be received warmly, then it is a priority that he accepts responsibility for his actions and makes the appropriate efforts in educating future generations about the negative impact upon battered, beaten and bloodied women!

 

[SamTeàrlachH]

From someone who has made more mistakes and errors of judgement than I care to remember, I very much have a foot in the camp of "second chances".

I sincerely believe that we are products of our own events and circumstances and that poor decision-making and unforced errors help to create the people we are and who we become. However - I also believe that to warrant those second, third, and fourth chances, then there has to be an acknowledgement and an acceptance of the mistake. There has to be some form of self-repentance that is not bestowed by a court of law, but by the court of personal accountability.

I don't know the circumstances related to Danny Simpson's conviction (and he was convicted), but I have yet to happen across his statement renouncing these actions, and it is that lack of self-awareness which I have a major issue with.

I hope that I just haven't searched hard enough and that somewhere out there, there is a clear and bold statement denouncing any act of domestic violence against women, children or men.

If Danny Simpson wants to be received warmly, then it is a priority that he accepts responsibility for his actions and makes the appropriate efforts in educating future generations about the negative impact upon battered, beaten and bloodied women!

I think that's a very fair point. And while he might look at it as if he's done his time and expressed a recognition of guilt in court and thus doesn't need to say anything in public, I think public figures who commit these kind of crimes have an obligation to do something akin to what you say above.

 

[Millsy]

We all know the story when a woman accused of adultery is brought to Jesus and he is asked to judge her in front of bloodthirsty crowd .
''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ! '' says Jesus , knowing that none of the crowd would claim this .
However there is a commotion at the back of the crowd , which slowly parts and reveals a small figure carrying an enormous rock . The figure stumbles up to the accused woman and drops the rock on her , crushing her to death .
Jesus looks at the small figure and says '' Ma , you really piss me off sometimes ! ''

HH

 

[Niall J]

A brilliantly written and balanced post Sam. Covers all the emotion and tangled thoughts we've all considered and many we possibly hadn't.
My own thoughts are that if it takes such an amount of untangling to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the deal is in any way acceptable then I'd rather decline.
My own issue is much like SP. He has been punished and carried out that punishment but did he really repent and take responsibility for actions and their repercussions and effects on loved ones?
From how I understand it and I may be wrong, he avoided Prison despite the judge being tempted to hand down a custodial sentence due to his public profile, the judge instead sentenced him to a hefty dose of community service. He appealed this on safety grounds and the sentence reverted to house arrest. He then appealed that also. If that is all factual it is not a sign of a man willing to accept responsibility if you ask me.
Also it's the abuse of power that sits uncomfortably with me. His partner issued a long statement to court claiming it was all overblown and overstated. The court rejected the statement. That could possibly mean they either felt she was coerced or still under the influence of some form of controlling behaviour, again I don't know.
I do know however if he was a friend I could only forgive if I genuinely believed he'd regretted it, otherwise I'd have nothing to do with him.
I'd also feel hypocritical. I was opposed to Stan Collymore joining and wanted nothing to do with our links at the time to Jon Flanagan for the same reasons. I'm not going to change for this particular player just because he's a premier league winner undoubtedly a good footballer and probably a fine choice as a right back. It's simply not for me nor do I think it will happen.

 

[Theverdict1]

For some people this isn't even a dilemma.

In the mind of these people, Celtic should have nothing to do with Danny Simpson due to his conviction for assaulting his then-girlfriend and mother of his child. No questions asked. I completely sympathise with this position. I'm trying to imagine how I'd react if Celtic signed someone who had been convicted of, say, racist assault. Would I even call this hypothetical signing a 'dilemma'? Or would I flat out scoff and reject the idea?

I'm hardly religious, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all the rest of it. While there can never be any kind of justification for the actions of Simpson, shouldn't I practice what I preach? What Simpson did is not something that can be explained by someone like me or anyone else not directly related to the case , but shouldn't we look upon this as him having served his time, and one could argue he got off lightly compared to what your average wife-beater would get, and thus the guy deserves a 'second chance', so to speak. Or perhaps 'benefit of the doubt', as to his character and not to his guilt of the initial offence, is more adequate?

There are some who are judging Simpson purely on perceived merit - his footballing skills. Again, I can understand this. But whether you think he's good enough or not, are we the kind of club who would reject people who have made mistakes - yes, even criminal and despicable mistakes. Obviously there's a line. If Simpson had a persistent history of domestic abuse, I'd be firmly in the camp who would reject him out of hand. But what if we do sign him? Let's be honest, even within Celtic's current ranks, you'd find people who have made many mistakes in their personal life. Do we judge these people on their histories rather than how they are now or the role they play in our club? We absolutely do not. And nor should we. I know we scorned Sevco for signing the convicted wife-beater Jon Flanagan, but, and I count myself here, perhaps we were slightly guilty of falling into the trap of using that as ammunition against a club who we all, with very good reason, despise? That's not everyone - for some, I understand that they believe that people like Flanagan or Simpson should not be accepted at our football club. But here wider questions of the idea of reform vs constant vilification come into play - beyond Simpson and his past crimes.

I think, on reflection, if the Celtic management team believe Danny Simpson can do a job for us, we as fans must support him. Nothing made me more proud when, following the incident where video emerged of a young and intoxicated Leigh Griffiths sang a racist song sung about Rudi Skacel, the Green Brigade unveiled a banner saying 'A man must be a Celt on and off the field. Otherwise he is of no value to this club'. One of the reasons, outside of personal factors and questions of identity, I truly fell in love with Celtic as a football club is because we are a club who cares about things outside football. We do often involve ourselves with hard but righteous political questions, causes and issues. We do have, built into the bones of our club, an ethos of egalitarianism and anti-racism that stems from the fact that we are a club of refugees - of survivors of empire and all of its evils. Of a core community of people who still to this day face societal hatred and demonisation. Would a Sevco fan site ever have run such a brilliant and touching essay on the political context of Sarajevo, and the wider context of the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian fascists and Srebrenica in particular, as The Celtic Star did, if their club was to play them? Would the Billy Boys, the friends of Tommy Robinson, have done or considered anything remotely like this? Hardly any other fans of a football club in Europe would, let alone Scotland's very own social disease masquerading as a football club.

All of this is important. And when you look at the practical work Celtic ghirls have done to eradicate misogyny in football and make football more women-friendly very recently, perhaps their voice is most important when it comes to Simpson? Don't get me wrong, the club will sign him or reject him regardless of what we as fans think, but we do have a voice and we've seen this voice come into action at times when those who run our club have stepped over the mark. Some might say this voice is more quiet now than it was in the 1990s, when there was true turmoil gripping our club, but I think it would come roaring back if ever something egregiously unethical or corrupt was to happen.

All in all, and it might be that Simpson doesn't cut the mustard in terms of footballing quality, I'm leaning towards the camp of those who believe in giving people second chances and believing that people can make mistakes, including criminal ones, and be adequately reformed or deserving of the chance to prove themselves as reformed. I think that principle of forgiveness and contrition is part of the Celtic way as well.

Great post. I too am conflicted and slightly concerned with some of the vitriol that has been expressed. I also believe that the stance taken by some of our support in relation to Flanagan, was out of using his past not as a way to decry violence against women, more to have a go at Sevco.

Then you have the question you raised about do we condemn people forever for mistakes? Well the bottom line with that is no we don’t. People serve time then are released. So what do we do?

For me, if the guy had a history of repeated attacks on women, then I would have a real issue. If it is one incident that he is truly sorry for, then rehabilitation and a second chance is not outwith my options.

I always have suspicions about the motivation for taking the moral high ground, as I did when Flanagan appeared. I never bought that it was all about him for some, but as I said, a way to attack Sevco.

I don’t believe Jesus even existed, but surely those who do must listen to what he was quoted as saying. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

It seems to me a lot of stones are being cast from perfect beings within our support.

If the guy is sorry knows what he did was totally out of order and even better, out of character, then for any so called Christian/ religious person to condemn him forever, seems to fly in the face of all their top guy preached.

If he is repentant, then I would give him a chance. Then I would ask those within our support who love to scramble to the moral high ground that is unforgiving and vindictive to look at themselves and take a fucking day aff.

People make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones. You don’t have to be religious to be forgiving. But it should be a thing we do and Indeed it is a human characteristic, that should be deployed when people are sorry for what they have done.

To say you forgive someone does not mean you condone, it means you have compassion and are willing to allow someone to take a better path. I think that’s a better way to live rather than the rabid eternal condemnation, so prevelant with too many people.

If I had a vote, I would cast it to give him a second chance.

 

[SamTeàrlachH]

A brilliantly written and balanced post Sam. Covers all the emotion and tangled thoughts we've all considered and many we possibly hadn't.
My own thoughts are that if it takes such an amount of untangling to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the deal is in any way acceptable then I'd rather decline.
My own issue is much like SP. He has been punished and carried out that punishment but did he really repent and take responsibility for actions and their repercussions and effects on loved ones?
From how I understand it and I may be wrong, he avoided Prison despite the judge being tempted to hand down a custodial sentence due to his public profile, the judge instead sentenced him to a hefty dose of community service. He appealed this on safety grounds and the sentence reverted to house arrest. He then appealed that also. If that is all factual it is not a sign of a man willing to accept responsibility if you ask me.
Also it's the abuse of power that sits uncomfortably with me. His partner issued a long statement to court claiming it was all overblown and overstated. The court rejected the statement. That could possibly mean they either felt she was coerced or still under the influence of some form of controlling behaviour, again I don't know.
I do know however if he was a friend I could only forgive if I genuinely believed he'd regretted it, otherwise I'd have nothing to do with him.
I'd also feel hypocritical. I was opposed to Stan Collymore joining and wanted nothing to do with our links at the time to Jon Flanagan for the same reasons. I'm not going to change for this particular player just because he's a premier league winner undoubtedly a good footballer and probably a fine choice as a right back. It's simply not for me nor do I think it will happen.

Great post. I too am conflicted and slightly concerned with some of the vitriol that has been expressed. I also believe that thecstance taken by somebody of our support in relation to Flanagan was out of using his past not as a way to decry violence against women, more to have a go at Sevco.

Then you have the question you raised about do we condemn people forever for mistakes? Well the bottom line with that is no we don’t. People serve time then are released. So what do we do?

For me, if the guy had a history of repeated attacks on women, then I would have a real issue. If it is one incident that he is truly sorry for, then rehabilitation and a second chance is not outwith my options.

I always have suspicions about the motivation for taking the moral high ground as I did when Flanagan appeared. I never bought that it was all about him for some, but as I said a way to attack Sevco.

I don’t believe Jesus even existed but surely those who do must listen to what he was quoted as saying. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

It seems to me a lot of stones are being cast from perfect beings within our support.

If the guy is sorry knows what he did was totally out of order and even better out of character, then for any so called Christian/ religious person to condemn him forever seems to fly in the face of all their top guy preached.

If he is repentant, then I would give him a chance. Then I would ask those within our support who love to scramble to the moral high ground that is unforgiving and vindictive to look at themselves and take a fucking day aff.

People make mistakes, sometimes terrible ones. You don’t have to be religious to be forgiving. But it should be a thing we do and Indeed it is a human characteristic that should be deployed when people are sorry for what they have done.

To say you forgive someone does not mean you condone, it means you have compassion and are willing to allow someone to take a better path. I think that’s a better way to live rather than the rabid eternal condemnation so prevelant with too many people.

If I had a vote, I would cast it to give him a second chance.

Two magnificent responses.

 

[Robbyp]

Is there a cut off point to the forgiveness of potential Celtic players? Would we, for example be tempted to sign someone like Adam Johnson, who i'm sure regrets his previous actions, would we accept that, or Bruno Fernandes, who probably also has regrets, or indeed any of many players with a dodgy past who might also wish they hadn't done what they did.

Or should Celtic, a club for all, show a zero tolerance for violence against females and children? Shouldn't we be a beacon for fairness, respect and integrity irrespective of how good a player may be?

Players, as young men, will from time to time fuck-up but there are some things that quite simply go beyond the pale. Supporters, myself included, have made many regrettable decisions in our lives, but we as individuals are not the public face of the club, the players and management are, and as such should be held up as a repesentation of Celtic's proclaimed values.

So, for me, there is no way that this guy should even be awarded a trial period never mind a contract.

I suppose my question is, what offences are we prepared to accept from our players, who, remember, are held up as role models for many youngsters?

 

[Lmcbhoy]

I have read all the posts here. Unfortunately I don't have the eloquence of the fine writers on this blog.
However I share the dichotomy of feelings being written about.
If he were to sign I would hope Celtic Football Club would have the good sense to advise him to face up to the issue to the extent of showing that there is genuine contrition.
I certainly don't know the post event facts and as ever there is a longer story behind all of this.
With genuine contrition forgiveness should follow in my opinion. I think Celtic will do the right thing for both the club and the person.

On a lighter note Millsy's take on the parable did make me laugh.

HH

 

[26+6=1]

Has it ever been proven that he is/was/will be offered a trial?

 

[Robbyp]

Pope Minus, I have no idea about the intracies of his case, but I would be very disappointed if we were now looking at legal technicalities to justify signing this guy?

 

[26+6=1]

Pope Minus, I have no idea about the intracies of his case, but I would be very disappointed if we were now looking at legal technicalities to justify signing this guy?

AFAIK the whole thing is based on a claim in some toilet paper and there has been nothing from the club about it. Infact Simpson just did an interview and never once mentioned Celtic. This could well be nothing more than a squirrel aimed at causing dissent amongst Celtic fans and distraction from the SMSM's decision to finally admit to Bike Mikeaggedon

 

[TET]

Its a no from me.

Nought to do with Flanagan

I find it funny though that most players who get slaughtered by certain Celtic fans due to not really being good enough for Celtic since never heard of him, or not really got a winning streak or stand out past find it OK to stand up for people who don't fit their own Celtic superiority status will back unheard of wife beaters.

They even go out their way to overprice certain ordinary players with no pedigree at all based on feelings. yet got out their way to say give a criminal a chance.

Hahahahaha

Big long wonky lectures on ethics while telling all regularly that ethics cant exist since truth and virtue are imaginary.

For me anybody sentenced by court of law for violence to the woman he claims he loves is a reprobate of the highest order. And while they deserve a chance to change their life for better and learn the lessons of why it was a crime, its better to do it elsewhere.

Now I'm sure I will get the usual whataboout him or him

I also found it funny that our regular angry man found it in his heart to stand up for Flanagan the hun.

Curious that he wants them dead on every other post until it involves a controversial signing of a criminal with violent tendencies.

Moral compass

Ethics

Keep criminals like joey barton and his ilk out the game. that includes the host of financial criminals pretending to be stand out ethical human beings.

 

[SamTeàrlachH]

Is there a cut off point to the forgiveness of potential Celtic players? Would we, for example be tempted to sign someone like Adam Johnson, who i'm sure regrets his previous actions, would we accept that, or Bruno Fernandes, who probably also has regrets, or indeed any of many players with a dodgy past who might also wish they hadn't done what they did.

Or should Celtic, a club for all, show a zero tolerance for violence against females and children? Shouldn't we be a beacon for fairness, respect and integrity irrespective of how good a player may be?

Players, as young men, will from time to time fuck-up but there are some things that quite simply go beyond the pale. Supporters, myself included, have made many regrettable decisions in our lives, but we as individuals are not the public face of the club, the players and management are, and as such should be held up as a repesentation of Celtic's proclaimed values.

So, for me, there is no way that this guy should even be awarded a trial period never mind a contract.

I suppose my question is, what offences are we prepared to accept from our players, who, remember, are held up as role models for many youngsters?

I think Johnson raped someone. Now, without adopting armchair criminology, I don't think that can be considered in the same ballpark as the crime of which Simpson was convicted. Having just read the reporting of this at the time, his girlfriend said that he straddled her and wouldn't let her up during an argument. There was no sexual assault or 'beating' (again, not downplaying, but if there had been an element of extreme violence to it, he'd have been put in prison for it). I think with sexual assault, given the nature of sex crimes, you do have to look at those individuals and say they pose a continued risk to society and, in my opinion, they should not be employed in high profile jobs.

Simpson got community service and a fine, I believe. His girlfriend tried to rescind the charges, but the CPS clearly went forward with the case regardless. I'm not downplaying what Simpson did, but it's clearly not the kind of offence where his actions, regardless of imprisonment, determine that he could be a direct threat to society, unlike with sexual assault.

Without blethering on any further, my point is that my potential acceptance of Simpson is determined by the factors of his case. The point you raise is a very interesting one - at what point do we, as individuals and as a society, say something is unforgivable? But it's clear that society does already have that mechanism for determining the severity of crimes and what such crimes say about the offender. For me, with someone like Simpson, there is room for understanding on a professional level.

 

[TET]

I think Johnson raped someone. Now, without adopting armchair criminology, I don't think that can be considered in the same ballpark as the crime of which Simpson was convicted. Having just read the reporting of this at the time, his girlfriend said that he straddled her and wouldn't let her up during an argument. There was no sexual assault or 'beating' (again, not downplaying, but if there had been an element of extreme violence to it, he'd have been put in prison for it). I think with sexual assault, given the nature of sex crimes, you do have to look at those individuals and say they pose a continued risk to society and, in my opinion, they should not be employed in high profile jobs.

Simpson got community service and a fine, I believe. His girlfriend tried to rescind the charges, but the CPS clearly went forward with the case regardless. I'm not downplaying what Simpson did, but it's clearly not the kind of offence where his actions, regardless of imprisonment, determine that he could be a direct threat to society, unlike with sexual assault.

Without blethering on any further, my point is that my potential acceptance of Simpson is determined by the factors of his case. The point you raise is a very interesting one - at what point do we, as individuals and as a society, say something is unforgivable? But it's clear that society does already have that mechanism for determining the severity of crimes and what such crimes say about the offender. For me, with someone like Simpson, there is room for understanding on a professional level.

nought to do with society or pharisee law bending

He comes with unnecessary baggage that has jack to do with football

This my last comment on this thread

Every topic you start is laced with poison

You play into msm propaganda with every thread you begin.

You deliberately concoct the kind of garbage pharisee dialogue with ethical nonsense while always, always mentioning its not your bag.

You find people to be anti semitic with thin air

you find people to be gobshites of the highest order with utter contempt for ethics

And today your latest propaganda piece backed with a few of your angry men contradictors is a back up for someone heinous


Instigator or is it holy spirit?

the zionistic arabic scotsman with Irish revolution in your blood

You did mention you get paid for starting riots

I put it to you you aint here for dialogue
Your here for a good reason, and it aint love of Celtic

 

[The Shamrock]

I've been thinking about this and reading everyone's excellent postings and views on the matter of Simpson at Celtic.
My gut reaction is to say no, he shouldn't be Celtic player or even have a trial period here. Violence against women is abhorrent and if his partner had been a 6' 5'' 15st man then we wouldn't be having this dilemma because he would have thought twice about lifting his hands in the first instance.
We have had players in the past who have had their issues regarding domestic violence, alcoholism and even drug misuse and because they were already on the books, they were helped and supported by Celtic. Simpson isn't already on the books and we(possibly) may be able to sign him and although everyone deserves a second chance, I would be happier if some team other than Celtic gave him it.

 

[Theverdict1]

Its a no from me.

Nought to do with Flanagan

I find it funny though that most players who get slaughtered by certain Celtic fans due to not really being good enough for Celtic since never heard of him, or not really got a winning streak or stand out past find it OK to stand up for people who don't fit their own Celtic superiority status will back unheard of wife beaters.

They even go out their way to overprice certain ordinary players with no pedigree at all based on feelings. yet got out their way to say give a criminal a chance.

Hahahahaha

Big long wonky lectures on ethics while telling all regularly that ethics cant exist since truth and virtue are imaginary.

For me anybody sentenced by court of law for violence to the woman he claims he loves is a reprobate of the highest order. And while they deserve a chance to change their life for better and learn the lessons of why it was a crime, its better to do it elsewhere.

Now I'm sure I will get the usual whataboout him or him

I also found it funny that our regular angry man found it in his heart to stand up for Flanagan the hun.

Curious that he wants them dead on every other post until it involves a controversial signing of a criminal with violent tendencies.

Moral compass

Ethics

Keep criminals like joey barton and his ilk out the game. that includes the host of financial criminals pretending to be stand out ethical human beings.

There you go again with your inquisitor condemnation. I am coMing round to the concept of reincarnation, as you are clearly a 16th century rehash of those righteous types that burned people at the stake.

I wasn’t defending Flanagan, I was questioning the motives of those who were attacking him.

And I don’t want Sevconians dead, I m not a fucking lunatic. I want them to be there and provide us with entertainment.

It must be great be so divine and all knowing.

As for angry? I’ve never came across someone as angry as you TET. I would worry about people like you if a theocratic regime ever came into power. You would be a fucking vindictive torturer of those who didn’t buy into your vent about demonic shenighans and the Catholic Church.

Luckily the world has moved on from medieval bollocks.

Have a great day though. Us humanists are always a safer bet than religious nutters to be around. We haven’t been burned a single person or threw a gay man off a roof. Improsoned young unmarried women for being pregnant or wiped out our enemies for believing differently.

Peace and love

 

[Shadow2]

For some people this isn't even a dilemma.

In the mind of these people, Celtic should have nothing to do with Danny Simpson due to his conviction for assaulting his then-girlfriend and mother of his child. No questions asked. I completely sympathise with this position. I'm trying to imagine how I'd react if Celtic signed someone who had been convicted of, say, racist assault. Would I even call this hypothetical signing a 'dilemma'? Or would I flat out scoff and reject the idea?

I'm hardly religious, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all the rest of it. While there can never be any kind of justification for the actions of Simpson, shouldn't I practice what I preach? What Simpson did is not something that can be explained by someone like me or anyone else not directly related to the case , but shouldn't we look upon this as him having served his time, and one could argue he got off lightly compared to what your average wife-beater would get, and thus the guy deserves a 'second chance', so to speak. Or perhaps 'benefit of the doubt', as to his character and not to his guilt of the initial offence, is more adequate?

There are some who are judging Simpson purely on perceived merit - his footballing skills. Again, I can understand this. But whether you think he's good enough or not, are we the kind of club who would reject people who have made mistakes - yes, even criminal and despicable mistakes. Obviously there's a line. If Simpson had a persistent history of domestic abuse, I'd be firmly in the camp who would reject him out of hand. But what if we do sign him? Let's be honest, even within Celtic's current ranks, you'd find people who have made many mistakes in their personal life. Do we judge these people on their histories rather than how they are now or the role they play in our club? We absolutely do not. And nor should we. I know we scorned Sevco for signing the convicted wife-beater Jon Flanagan, but, and I count myself here, perhaps we were slightly guilty of falling into the trap of using that as ammunition against a club who we all, with very good reason, despise? That's not everyone - for some, I understand that they believe that people like Flanagan or Simpson should not be accepted at our football club. But here wider questions of the idea of reform vs constant vilification come into play - beyond Simpson and his past crimes.

I think, on reflection, if the Celtic management team believe Danny Simpson can do a job for us, we as fans must support him. Nothing made me more proud when, following the incident where video emerged of a young and intoxicated Leigh Griffiths sang a racist song sung about Rudi Skacel, the Green Brigade unveiled a banner saying 'A man must be a Celt on and off the field. Otherwise he is of no value to this club'. One of the reasons, outside of personal factors and questions of identity, I truly fell in love with Celtic as a football club is because we are a club who cares about things outside football. We do often involve ourselves with hard but righteous political questions, causes and issues. We do have, built into the bones of our club, an ethos of egalitarianism and anti-racism that stems from the fact that we are a club of refugees - of survivors of empire and all of its evils. Of a core community of people who still to this day face societal hatred and demonisation. Would a Sevco fan site ever have run such a brilliant and touching essay on the political context of Sarajevo, and the wider context of the genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian fascists and Srebrenica in particular, as The Celtic Star did, if their club was to play them? Would the Billy Boys, the friends of Tommy Robinson, have done or considered anything remotely like this? Hardly any other fans of a football club in Europe would, let alone Scotland's very own social disease masquerading as a football club.

All of this is important. And when you look at the practical work Celtic ghirls have done to eradicate misogyny in football and make football more women-friendly very recently, perhaps their voice is most important when it comes to Simpson? Don't get me wrong, the club will sign him or reject him regardless of what we as fans think, but we do have a voice and we've seen this voice come into action at times when those who run our club have stepped over the mark. Some might say this voice is more quiet now than it was in the 1990s, when there was true turmoil gripping our club, but I think it would come roaring back if ever something egregiously unethical or corrupt was to happen.

All in all, and it might be that Simpson doesn't cut the mustard in terms of footballing quality, I'm leaning towards the camp of those who believe in giving people second chances and believing that people can make mistakes, including criminal ones, and be adequately reformed or deserving of the chance to prove themselves as reformed. I think that principle of forgiveness and contrition is part of the Celtic way as well.

Outstanding post Sam, brilliantly written

Without getting into a lengthy moral debate about forgiveness, sitting in judgement of others and what crimes go beyond forgiveness etc. I think the points Niall made regarding Simpson's behaviour after his sentencing is what makes it a NO for me. There didn't appear to be any contrition shown by Simpson for what was a reprehensible act, his repeated and calculated attempts to avoid any form of punishment gives you an insight into his character imo.

It's bad enough he did what he did but for him to try to squirm his way out of paying his dues for it......nah that's no someone I want my club to be associated with.

HH Sam

 

[TET]

There you go again with your inquisitor condemnation. I am coMing round to the concept of reincarnation, as you are clearly a 16th century rehash of those righteous types that burned people at the stake.

I wasn’t defending Flanagan, I was questioning the motives of those who were attacking him.

And I don’t want Sevconians dead, I m not a fucking lunatic. I want them to be there and provide us with entertainment.

It must be great be so divine and all knowing.

As for angry? I’ve never came across someone as angry as you TET. I would worry about people like you if a theocratic regime ever came into power. You would be a fucking vindictive torturer of those who didn’t buy into your vent about demonic shenighans and the Catholic Church.

Luckily the world has moved on from medieval bollocks.

Have a great day though. Us humanists are always a safer bet than religious nutters to be around. We haven’t been burned a single person or threw a gay man off a roof. Improsoned young unmarried women for being pregnant or wiped out our enemies for believing differently.

Peace and love

no pal

your the religious zealot type
no me

you call your self verdict

Hahahahaha

 

[Shadow2]

I've been thinking about this and reading everyone's excellent postings and views on the matter of Simpson at Celtic.
My gut reaction is to say no, he shouldn't be Celtic player or even have a trial period here. Violence against women is abhorrent and if his partner had been a 6' 5'' 15st man then we wouldn't be having this dilemma because he would have thought twice about lifting his hands in the first instance.
We have had players in the past who have had their issues regarding domestic violence, alcoholism and even drug misuse and because they were already on the books, they were helped and supported by Celtic. Simpson isn't already on the books and we(possibly) may be able to sign him and although everyone deserves a second chance, I would be happier if some team other than Celtic gave him it.

Very well said Shamrock