AT face value it seemed nothing but the same old song.

A run-of-the-mill statement issued this week by British Transport Police (BTP) sought information on some apparent unsavoury behaviour on a late night train from Glasgow.

Again the culprits were football fans, on this occasion Celtic supporters returning from a game against Inter Milan engaged in sectarian sing songs. Some fellow passengers were "disgusted" by what they had heard on the train to Perth and informed the force.

So far, so standard. What was a little different was BTP's refusal to provide further details on any remotely specific allegation. We knew the incident happened as the train passed Gleneagles and it was the 11.36pm service. But just what had been sung?

Within moments of BTP's statement that sectarian singing had indeed taken place being carried on the websites of various news outlets only a few on social media and within journalism asked that very question.

In response to queries by The Herald, BTP said a passenger who reported it "was of the opinion that the songs were sectarian".

Football fans, too often rowdy and consuming alcohol, can certainly be an intimidating presence for fellow passengers, a legitimate reason in itself to contact the police.

But simply sporting a green and white, or red and blue, or for that matter maroon, claret, tangerine or navy, scarf and being loud and obnoxious is not necessarily "sectarian".

Last month the first social attitudes survey on sectarianism in Scotland found nearly nine in 10 blamed it on football yet only one in three arrests where its a factor is football-related.

Without knowing what was sung, could it simply be the case the fellow passengers were of the perception something was infused with sectarianism when it wasn't? Perhaps.

Were BTP unsure songs or chants in support of proscribed groups actually fell under the definition "sectarian" as no religious faith was explicitly mentioned? Maybe.

Without providing specifics, is BTP perpetuating perceptions where supporters are a bête noire? Most certainly.

It isn't enough, as one journalist recommended, to simply take the police's word. The entire narrative around Police Scotland's recent 'stop and search' controversy has been about doing the very opposite. It is the news media's job to hold authority to account.

I have some sympathy with BTP. When even the expert group hired by ministers to get to grips with the problem takes a public pasting for not having a snap definition of sectarianism and Offensive Behaviour at Football court cases continue to fall apart, their reluctance is understandable.

More than Police Scotland, BTP has given the impression it has made the issue a priority. So too has the Scottish Government. It has just spent £9 million of public cash in addressing it. (We await to see how its quantifies 'money well spent').

But if BTP wants the media to take its efforts equally seriously it needs to provide facts, as it would in other cases, and not simply cite the 's' word.