Wolves date with Celtic confirmed

By "we", ODDJOB,do you mean Celtic and ROI legend Mick McCarthy,too?I'm only guessing but I doubt he'd join in with the singing.Well, at least not with the part about wading knee deep in his blood.

And McCarthy only played for Ireland because he wasn't good enough to play for England lol , He was a Yorkshire lad through n through as was his mum , it was his old man thats Irish !

I dont care what you think , do you love muslim terrorists ? , I find Irish the same with the amount of crap they have done yet we have to bail them out of trouble financially but they will always hate us so yes i dont like the irish , if you dont like that then fine thats upto you , I wont lose any sleep over it , Sick of this country helping everyone else out when it cant be bothered tpo help out its own , Ohhhh and you gonna come back with anything i said other than Irish Scum or dont you know what your talking ABOUT ????

Because you called me a bloody racist over 1 song that means naff all to you but it does to me , you started all this !!!

You should have been a teacher SB.I quite agree,it's gone far enough.When I read the first post on this thread, I could, of course, have chosen not to respond to it(like everyone else).But it was just the ridiculous notion of our team being "supported" by a chant that includes the implication of being knee deep in the blood of our players and manager.So sarcasm took over.If the first post had been part of an Irish rebel song calling for a wade through english blood, i'd have asked how he/she think's the english players in the team would have felt...but I doubt i'd have been the only other posting somehow.More a case of "join the queue", I think.I don't share your view, however,SB that the moderate view is, necessarily,the majority view. I think the views expressed by ODDJOB on this thread are held by quite a sizeable amount of people(the silence was deafening)It's a whole lot closer,proportionally, than moderate's might like it to be.And, of course, i've noticed that since this thread began,my posts seem to have been rendered invisible on other threads, whilst ODDJOB's have been recieving responses and references as usual...very telling indeed.Anyway,as we agree(and i'm sure others agree,too)enough is enough.I've learned a few things about people on here,that's for sure, so no time wasted.

I am republishing my account of the Irish problem because of a couple of typos in it and I want the message to be clearly stated. Oh dear, this really has got out of hand. It's widened out from Oddjob's ill-advised reference to 'Billy Boys', through the Celtic-Rangers rivalry and the Irish problem to encompass immigration, the banking crisis and global terrorism. At least moderate opinion seems to be the majority view. The Irish question has festered for centuries, ever since Richard de Clare, the 2nd. Earl of Pembroke (known as Strongbow!), imposed English rule in the 12th. century, putting down resistance with the utmost brutality. Naturally, the Irish committed atrocities too and the cycle kept repeating itself for hundreds of years. For the Irish it was a fight for political and religious freedom, for the English the suppression of treasonous subjects. The Irish Confederates almost succeeded in 1641-2 when the English government was distracted by rebellion in Scotland. The 'rebels' did slaughter many protestant settlers, the number growing with the retelling. Of course, the English got their revenge under Cromwell, specifically at the sieges of Drogheda and Wexford, where the soldiery used the excuse of the atrocities committed by the Irish Catholic rebels to justify their own actions. The Irish continued to strive for independence: for instance, taking the opportunity of the wars against Napoleon to rise in rebellion. The Act of Union in 1801 merged ther Irish and British Parliaments, which, after Roman Catholic emancipation in 1829, contained some Irish Nationalist MPs. By the late 19th. century the Home Rule question came to the fore as Nationalist MPs started to exert an influence (and determine the outcome of votes). If it hadn't been for the scandal caused by the affair between their leader, Parnell, and Mrs. O'Shea, Home Rule would have passed, and we would have been saved all this misery. Home Rule came to the fore again in the early 20th. century and an Act was actually passed in 1912. This was strenuously opposed by elements in the Irish protestant establishment, some of whom were engaged in treasonous activities to prevent it. In the end, the First World War intervened and another opportunity was lost. Clearly, atrocities have been committed on both sides, even in recent times, but an awareness of the historical background and the realisation that both sides have made mistakes should help to ease the situation now. For instance, the term 'Billy Boys' refers to the protestant supporters of William III, who defeated the forces of the deposed king, James II, at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Note, too, that Ulster used to be one of the most 'lawless' regions of Ireland and that the English government attempted to change the political and religious complexion of the area by planting protestant settlers in the province in the early 17th. century. This process accelerated during the course of the British Civil Wars, 1638-1654 and afterwards, when many Scottish Protestants arrived. Naturally, the native Irish felt bitter about the loss of their land and resented their status as second class citizens. So, the problem continued to bedevil the English government. Now, in a supposedly more enlightened age, perhaps neither side will resort to violence and that the democratic process will determine the ourcome.

Didn't need to google Wikipedia, Oddjob, as I am a History teacher, whose job it is to understand the past in order to correct misconceptions in the present. Of course, there was no I.R.A. in 1641 but English oppression of Ireland over centuries created the conditions that led to the I.R.A. Of course, it was a more brutal age and wars of conquest did happen. After all, the Normans conquered us in 1066. In more enlightened times we should recognise the natural aspirations of a people to be free and decolonize.By the opening years of the 20th. century we were on the point of doing so in Ireland in spite of the oppostion of elements of the protestant establishment, whose ancestors seized land and political power from the native Irish. However, the First World War intervened. If Hitler had conquered GB in 1940 guerrilla forces would have been viewed as freedom fighters. I am not condoning I.R.A. violence because in a democracy there is a political way forward. Now, it appears as though that solution is being given a chance, the opposition of catholic and protestant extremists notwithstanding. You are taking a biased view of the problem whereas I, observing right and wrong on both sides, advocate dialogue and respect. Why should you think that I am Irish? Presumably because I take a balanced view. Naturally, I abhor crude, provocative chanting- from whatever quarter- but that does not put me in the pocket of one side or the other. Rangers supporters are not completely innocent of intemperate chanting either!