Over the last few days, there has been much discussion regarding the activity and communications of the Union Bears.
There has been an element of backlash expressed to the group from some Rangers supporters online, unhappy with the anti-police/anti-authority sentiment that was displayed on the UB twitter account.
As is often the case on social media, there is no context or nuance when opinions clash, it is black or white.
https://t.co/QbU9mhmfGv pic.twitter.com/Kha6bgiveX
— Union Bears (@UnionBears_07) March 14, 2021
Ahead of the scheduled Old Firm clash this Sunday, there has been a political circus in-play around the fixture, due to recent events.
Full political capital has been expended – with the ongoing pandemic recovery and heightened scaremongering apparent.
The UB statement above makes the claim that they have been put under serious pressure by the police including intrusive contact and repeat visits to a member’s home address – seven times within two days.
A message of defiance was included stating that the group would not be deterred in their actions.
This followed a post depicting the ‘ACAB’ slogan.
It is an acroynm which stands for ‘All cops are bas*ar*s’
That is what sparked the outcry from a number of fellow Rangers fans – who are free to express an opinion.
Comments included the likes of:
‘Very bad taste and pathetic IMO’
‘Love the UB at times but what a daft statement.’
“Embarrassing behaviour. How many cops must be bears in Glasgow? Hundreds and hundreds.”
“If you want to represent our club you need to be able to rise above and always look to display the club in a positive light.”
A sample of the reaction was taken from a press report as well as from Follow Follow, a leading online Gers fan messageboard.
Context
The ACAB message is a universal one, visible right across Europe around the stadiums and in the stands.
As a message, it is as crass as it is explicit – it is a middle finger in the face of the state and police.
Some Rangers fans feel that it is not reflective of how their fellow supporters should behave and that it is not compatible with the good standing of Rangers FC – this is somewhat of a hazy myth.
Others point to the normal person in a uniform, doing a job, serving the public and taking direction from above.
On the flip side, there is another position – the one that UB are putting forward.
Ultras groups are by their nature rebellious, they do not conform and they do not always respect authority – as is clearly the case here.
It is another form of working class and youth culture – with many examples from down the years.
In order to achieve their prominence, influence, strength and resilience, groups like the UB have to occasionally blur the lines, push boundaries and take things a wee bit further.
Respect, recognition and effective leadership comes from knowing what battles to fight, when not to agitate and to manage relationships accordingly.
In a Rangers context, there needs to be a working relationship between the group and the club including a line of communication.
With safety and security obligations in mind, the club will always do what is right by them and be led in an official capacity, sometimes to the disagreement and dissatisfaction of the UB as well as the wider support.
Both need each other in different ways – if you will for a moment, consider the Ibrox atmosphere without efforts and co-ordination of the Union Bears, think of big European nights under the lights without their large scale displays, think of that lack of impact overall and for the players on the pitch. It paints a bleak picture.
The club also benefits in ‘soft’ ways from the UB in terms of different strands of marketing purposes and imagery.
Externally though, the demands can be tough.
It is ok for fellow fans to express an opinion, but many have no understanding or experience of being involved in such a group and what comes from it.
In getting involved, there is an obvious personal choice expressed and with that comes responsibility.
There is also a significant degree of scrutiny from the police and authorities as alluded to in the UB statement this week.
A few years ago, from the doomed SNP-led Offensive Behaviour at Football Act came the Police Scotland Football Working Group and the FoCUS venture.
This bill was repealed in April 2018, when ‘opposition parties argued for it to be scrapped, saying it unfairly targets football fans and has failed to tackle problems.’
Opponents put down the bill with a margin of two votes.
In that period, the overall SNP agenda and police implementation of the act led to a lot of surveillance and questionable methods – above and beyond the fact that certain behaviours around football will arouse and entice police attention.
Officers would often be clearly visible from the West Enclosure, with cameras trained on BF1 for the duration of games. There was covert action too.
The act was repealed because it was an overreach and with that in mind, to what extent if any, have the police been acting on political duress over the last few weeks and ahead of the Old Firm clash on Sunday?
Graeme Hanna
@graeme818