Videogate One - So that's it then?

Last updated : 02 February 2006 By Southsidebear
After the Videogate affair, Celtic’s Peter Lawwell promised to investigate. Many Bears expected this "investigation" to be a whitewash, and so it transpired.

Lo and behold, on that fateful Friday, just in time to meet the deadline for the Evening Times, they announce that they'd concluded their investigation, and that the players were cleared of all blame by implication that they didn't shout I Ran Away, or Shin Fayne. So that's it then? Case Closed. Forget about it, it never happened. Oh, and just for good measure, they're against all forms of bigotry & sectarianism.

The reports of his statement appeared pretty much word for word in the Evening Tims, and the Gerald, Rhebel, and The Sun, and the story was mostly ignored by the Sunday Press.

The fact that Celtic are to review players' attendance at "non-club" events, with no questions being asked by the 4th estate really should be a concern, as many of the questions last week are still unanswered, with others not even asked yet, that are every bit as important.
If the video was sent to independent analysis at a lab, what lab was it, and why haven't the full set of results been published?

What video were they sent? Did it still have the "14 Seconds" incident?
Contrary to reports by some sections of the media, seemingly at the behest of Celtic, the video was NOT fake or had not been dubbed over. How was it concluded in initial reports, that the tape possibly was fake, who's suggestion was this, and how qualified were they to make a judgement on it?

If this was a "non-club" event, (ie Jackie McNamara's testimonial), who was on the board of his testimonial committee?

Who decided to use the Clanree Hotel?

Did no-one from Celtic have an issue in using a hotel run by well known I-R-A sympathisers, that has held numerous I-R-A related functions and fundraisers?

Why did Celtic send officials over to Ireland to investigate, when many of the attendees were employees of the club, including the Chairman?

If players' attendance at club and "non-club" events, such as supporters club dances is to be reviewed, is that to be taken as a tacit admission that events run by many Celtic supporters clubs are rife with sectarianism and bigotry?

If we assume that that is the case, and that Celtic supporters club events, and in fact, any events of a Celtic minded nature are also like this, then where is the admission that the club has a serious problem with bigotry and sectarianism?

By removing the players from these events, the only thing they are doing is acknowledging what goes on, without condemning it, and only looking after the interests of the PR of the club.
This whole sham is a whitewash of the worst kind, and the lack of tough questioning in the media is all the more galling when you think of the more sinister aspects of this incident.
As for Videogate 2, it kills the argument that the player involved in both of these incidents was stitched up and unaware of the goings on at these events.

More interestingly, it is believed that Videogate 2 was on Scottish soil, in a Scottish establishment, and therefor both the person involved, and the venue where it took place, should be subject to anti-sectarian, and anti terrorist laws.
I think I'll be waiting a long time to see any action, which is the saddest aspect of this whole episode.