Whats going wrong these days,there are some really twisted people out there, bullets? bombs? if this is supposed to be a joke then its not a very good one. I hope that if anyone has any info they do the right thing and remove the people involved from society by contacting the police.

What should the punishment be for the teenage footballers who posted that they wished Lennon had been blown up on twitter, a caution? fine? dismissal? prison?

If the players involved have an unhealthy hatred for Neil Lennon then some form of punishment is required and the clubs involved would do well to get rid of them but if it was just an off the cuff comment would a caution have been suffice and advice given about using a bit more brain cells when posting on twitter/facebook. I'm not saying its acceptable behavior but I would prefer if more resources could be used to catch and jail the idiots involved than spend time dealing with people who posted a stupid comment on the issue.

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified?

Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem.

Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

"Tolerance" is an interesting one CD and viewed by many, myself included, as a major contributor to the problem.

For too long society has been tolerant of people who pop in for a "Chinky" or grab some fags from the "Pakis". Excuses are made for these terms, and many others, even justification. They are unacceptable and should not be tolerated but are by many who when challenged respond seek logical explanation in the same way you are doing in this discussion..

On this occasion I think your views are intolerable. A man of your intelligence should and does no better. Decent people searching for reason is viewed as reason by the lynch mob.

There is no room for opinion on this issue. It's simple.

PS. Apologise about the Hearts bit. You are right and I was getting you mixed up with The Knowledge.

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified?

Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem.

Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

"Tolerance" is an interesting one CD and viewed by many, myself included, as a major contributor to the problem.

For too long society has been tolerant of people who pop in for a "Chinky" or grab some fags from the "Pakis". Excuses are made for these terms, and many others, even justification. They are unacceptable and should not be tolerated but are by many who when challenged respond seek logical explanation in the same way you are doing in this discussion..

On this occasion I think your views are intolerable. A man of your intelligence should and does no better. Decent people searching for reason is viewed as reason by the lynch mob.

There is no room for opinion on this issue. It's simple.

PS. Apologise about the Hearts bit. You are right and I was getting you mixed up with The Knowledge.

Hypocrisy alert, it is not very tolerant to tell someone that they are not allowed an opinion.

To label someone a bigot because they do not like a man, after they have given non sectarian reasons for this dislike, is as narrow minded as any bigot out there. I was trying to make that point with the Morrissey link, just because you like Morrissey does not mean that you are in total agreement with his views on immigration or that you, like Morrissey, believe that the Chinese are a "sub-species" there are many reasons for forming an opinion of someone, dislike does not always boil down to bigotry.

Also, your views on the Taleban seem very intolerant. Given the fact that the Taleban are acting under religious beliefs, does that make your views sectarian?

Edited May 20, 201115 yr by marks

And the reason Morrissey was accused of racism?

- he said 'reggae is vile' (just a joke, he loved raggae, plus it's far from racism to not like a style of music)

- 'hang the DJ' was aimed at black people as they liked dance music (not only a racist viewpoint by categorising music but also wholly wrong - the news had just reported some bombing, riot or war [i forget which], then Tony Blackburn played Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go, hence 'it says nothing to me about my life)

- he has a fetish for skinheads, Confederates and the Union Jack, plus decries the loss of Englishness in England - he also heavily promoted Echobelly, with their Asian singer at the time

- he wrote some songs taken as supporting racism, such as National Front Disco and Bengali in Platforms (actually about the 1970s - see This Is 1986 movie) and Asian Rut (how anyone can see support of hate in this song is beyond me)

More reasons against:

- he strenuously denies it and had the NME back down over claims and falsification and even successfully sued the Word over similar claims

- he had a black girlfriend

- he's taken part in socialist and anti-racism benefits with the Smiths and funded anti-racism campaigns out of his own pocket as a solo artist

Where I disagree:

- he referred to Chinese as a subspecies due to their treatment of animals. I understand where he's coming from but his language was completely wrong.

Not only do we accept the songs but some of our fans have been known to sing songs of the OF half we are not playing. Athenry has been heard in the home stands. Famines over has been heard in the home stands.

Silly lads who probably didn't really have any idea what they were on about or had some misguided idea that it would be "fun" sing/chant such things in order to wind up the opposition. Whilst that doesn't excuse it, and probably highlights much of the problem across the whole of the game, I think you need to temper your comments with the fact that it was a very small minority, the rest of the fans immediately condemned it, someone had a word and we've not seen a repeat of it.

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified?

Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem.

Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

"Tolerance" is an interesting one CD and viewed by many, myself included, as a major contributor to the problem.

For too long society has been tolerant of people who pop in for a "Chinky" or grab some fags from the "Pakis". Excuses are made for these terms, and many others, even justification. They are unacceptable and should not be tolerated but are by many who when challenged respond seek logical explanation in the same way you are doing in this discussion..

On this occasion I think your views are intolerable. A man of your intelligence should and does no better. Decent people searching for reason is viewed as reason by the lynch mob.

There is no room for opinion on this issue. It's simple.

PS. Apologise about the Hearts bit. You are right and I was getting you mixed up with The Knowledge.

But without an understanding of the reason, how do you deal with the issue?

I have never, and likely will never, accept any argument on any subject which takes the standpoint of "because it just is" or "because I said so".

Your suggestion that my questioning of a situation or the reasons behind a situation somehow gives legitimacy to the perpetrators of these crimes is quite astonishing. Do courts not seek to understand cause/reason during a trial? Are they too giving legitimacy to the perpetrators of crime? Should we get rid of them and go back to trial by society? Would doing that not just bring us full circle and back to a situation where people take the law into their own hands and seek to deal justice, in whatever perverted manner and for whatever misguided reasons, they see fit? Is that not exactly what those who have sent bombs/bullets and attack Lennon have done?

Your statement that "there is no room for opinion" is hypocritical in the extreme and is precisely why we have the problem that we do. Wee Jimmy going along to the football with his dad "Dad, why do we sing these songs"..."We just do, Jimmy"..."But Dad, they don't seem very nice"..."It's not open for discussion, just sing"

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified?

Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem.

Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

"Tolerance" is an interesting one CD and viewed by many, myself included, as a major contributor to the problem.

For too long society has been tolerant of people who pop in for a "Chinky" or grab some fags from the "Pakis". Excuses are made for these terms, and many others, even justification. They are unacceptable and should not be tolerated but are by many who when challenged respond seek logical explanation in the same way you are doing in this discussion..

On this occasion I think your views are intolerable. A man of your intelligence should and does no better. Decent people searching for reason is viewed as reason by the lynch mob.

There is no room for opinion on this issue. It's simple.

PS. Apologise about the Hearts bit. You are right and I was getting you mixed up with The Knowledge.

But without an understanding of the reason, how do you deal with the issue?

I have never, and likely will never, accept any argument on any subject which takes the standpoint of "because it just is" or "because I said so".

Your suggestion that my questioning of a situation or the reasons behind a situation somehow gives legitimacy to the perpetrators of these crimes is quite astonishing. Do courts not seek to understand cause/reason during a trial? Are they too giving legitimacy to the perpetrators of crime? Should we get rid of them and go back to trial by society? Would doing that not just bring us full circle and back to a situation where people take the law into their own hands and seek to deal justice, in whatever perverted manner and for whatever misguided reasons, they see fit? Is that not exactly what those who have sent bombs/bullets and attack Lennon have done?

Your statement that "there is no room for opinion" is hypocritical in the extreme and is precisely why we have the problem that we do. Wee Jimmy going along to the football with his dad "Dad, why do we sing these songs"..."We just do, Jimmy"..."But Dad, they don't seem very nice"..."It's not open for discussion, just sing"

This is a good discussion.

As far as your first point regarding a trial, that is exactly what a defence solicitor does. He/she, if the accused pleads guilty (and from where I see it you do accept the guilt of the perpetrators), sets out to defend, reason and justify the actions taken thereby seeking legitimacy, compassion and in some case reason as to why they committed the crime. If you are choosing to adopt the role of the defence solicitor for those pursuing Neil Lennon then your position is exactly as I perceived it, seeking justification and reason.

I am full supportive of the Scottish judicial system and respect it in its entirety. Once we have legal proceedings to discuss I will do so happily.

With regard to Lennon, what hideous crime do the mob seek justice and retribution for? I am not aware of any.

Finally, it really disappoints me when this debate is taken back purely to football as you do in referring to songs. Bigotry runs much deeper than that and for me, the football is an outlet for it for many idiots. If it was not there they would and have found alternative vehicles/ There are numerous incidents in Scottish society of random attacks of bigotry which have no linkage to football. This is just a badge of convenience in which to hide the cancer, promoted by the establishment as it suits their agenda. It is easier spout the idea that it's "football's problem" or "Celtic and Ranger are the cause" than it is to accept it is a societal issue which must be challenged. Bigotry takes place everywhere from the workplace to the dancing. Football just happens to be the most prominent outlet.

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified?

Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem.

Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

"Tolerance" is an interesting one CD and viewed by many, myself included, as a major contributor to the problem.

For too long society has been tolerant of people who pop in for a "Chinky" or grab some fags from the "Pakis". Excuses are made for these terms, and many others, even justification. They are unacceptable and should not be tolerated but are by many who when challenged respond seek logical explanation in the same way you are doing in this discussion..

On this occasion I think your views are intolerable. A man of your intelligence should and does no better. Decent people searching for reason is viewed as reason by the lynch mob.

There is no room for opinion on this issue. It's simple.

PS. Apologise about the Hearts bit. You are right and I was getting you mixed up with The Knowledge.

Hypocrisy alert, it is not very tolerant to tell someone that they are not allowed an opinion.

To label someone a bigot because they do not like a man, after they have given non sectarian reasons for this dislike, is as narrow minded as any bigot out there. I was trying to make that point with the Morrissey link, just because you like Morrissey does not mean that you are in total agreement with his views on immigration or that you, like Morrissey, believe that the Chinese are a "sub-species" there are many reasons for forming an opinion of someone, dislike does not always boil down to bigotry.

Also, your views on the Taleban seem very intolerant. Given the fact that the Taleban are acting under religious beliefs, does that make your views sectarian?

Would you be kind enough to explain to me why Morissey is racist?

I think it is perfectly acceptable to tell some that there opinions will not be tolerated in a civilised society and that in some instances matters are black or white.

As stated previously, there is a fundamental difference between dislike and hate. There are people and things I dislike based on knowledge and experience. Hate is something I try to avoid if at all possible.

I am entirely intolerant of the Taleban and was saying so when our government chose to are them as it suited their agenda. My view on this will not change. I am not sectarian as this is nothing to do with their choice of religion but their record on human rights, history of aggression and oppression. They may argue otherwise, but for the vast majority of followers of Islam, their behaviour is far from Islamic.

This is a good discussion.

As far as your first point regarding a trial, that is exactly what a defence solicitor does. He/she, if the accused pleads guilty (and from where I see it you do accept the guilt of the perpetrators), sets out to defend, reason and justify the actions taken thereby seeking legitimacy, compassion and in some case reason as to why they committed the crime. If you are choosing to adopt the role of the defence solicitor for those pursuing Neil Lennon then your position is exactly as I perceived it, seeking justification and reason.

Your perceptions are wrong. Justification and reason are not inseparable and my stance throughout has been to argue that it is possible to seek reason without legitimising the actions or giving them justification. Without knowing the reasons, how can we seek to stem the problem...any problem, or prevent it happening again?

I am full supportive of the Scottish judicial system and respect it in its entirety. Once we have legal proceedings to discuss I will do so happily.

Me, not so much respect, but that's down to personal experience of being shafted by it twice in twelve months....but that's another story

I do respect the principles of the Scottish Judicial system though, and that system is suppose to allow someone trial without prejudice. The fact that just about everyone in the media, the Scottish First Minister, Football Authorities and a large portion of society have already prejudged these crimes as being acts of sectarianism goes against the underlying principles of that system.

With regard to Lennon, what hideous crime do the mob seek justice and retribution for? I am not aware of any.

None that I am aware of, which makes it even more important that we seek reasons as to why Lennon (and others involved) have been the target of these letter bombs/bullets and attacks.

Finally, it really disappoints me when this debate is taken back purely to football as you do in referring to songs. Bigotry runs much deeper than that and for me, the football is an outlet for it for many idiots. If it was not there they would and have found alternative vehicles/ There are numerous incidents in Scottish society of random attacks of bigotry which have no linkage to football. This is just a badge of convenience in which to hide the cancer, promoted by the establishment as it suits their agenda. It is easier spout the idea that it's "football's problem" or "Celtic and Ranger are the cause" than it is to accept it is a societal issue which must be challenged. Bigotry takes place everywhere from the workplace to the dancing. Football just happens to be the most prominent outlet.

Well, this is a football forum and this is a discussion which was been based around the goings on in football. We could discuss ad infinitum about how the problems exists in all walks of life (and I don't deny that it does) but it would just be the same discussion and you could as easily take this one and change football to just about any other activity and have the same points being made under another banner.

You seem to be dodging my point though....if we accept "There is no room for opinion on this issue" then how do we discuss and deal with the it? How does Wee Jimmy break the chain if we tell him he's not allowed an opinion? What alternative moral compass does he then have to follow other than that of his parents/peers who will be impressing their opinion on him and telling him nobody elses opinion counts? Who sets the rules and decides the boundaries between right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable if nobody is allowed an opinion?

Bigotry is a complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from your own. You can't fight bigotry with bigotry....if what's going on in football had taught us anything, I would have thought that would have been the main thing.

Accept the point that this discussion is centred around football by nature. Find it hard to stay there as the issue is much more deep rooted. We both agree on that.

Farm from dodging the issue of opinion, can I emphasise my belief that there is no room for choice in this matter, it is a matter of fact. The fact is Neil Lennon is being pursued by bigots. No debate, no opinion just a clear statement of fact which you (not specific to you but in general) either accept this to be true or not. That is my clear stand.

As you can no doubt tell from my ramblings I enjoy debate and have lots of opinions. Always happy to share and discuss but can't, in any way, see what the debate is here in which to have an opinion.

I accept that Neil Lennon is being pursued by bigots...but I also accept that there's other reasons why people dislike the guy and might want to pursue him.

What I don't like/accept, regardless of probability, is the fact that those responsible for sending bullets/bombs and the guy who attacked him at Tynecastle are automatically branded as sectarian because of who they attacked, with little thought/question given to why they attacked and anyone who tries to put forward other possible reasons being branded as bad as the perpetrators because they are somehow giving legitimacy to the acts by simply asking "why?".

Most people seem to agree that there's other reasons why Lennon is disliked, and until we know otherwise, any one of these could be the reason for the above mentioned acts. If man can be driven to pursue such acts for reasons of religion, he can just as easily be driven by other things.

Which all comes back to my point about needing to understand the reasons for these attacks.

I think, in order to debate the current situation with Lennon, we need to remember that this is not the first time he has been attacked or threatened. Lennon gave up international football with NI after he and his family were threatened with death following his comment in an interview that he would have loved to play in a United Ireland team. Nobody is sure where those threats came from but the Loyalist Volunteer Force were linked.

Sorted is correct in saying that sectarianism is more deep rooted than on the football ground. What he misses though is that the football ground is a ready made arena to voice the bigoted chants of two christian religions in Scotland. The football ground has been a regular arena, over the many years of the Ireland troubles, to voice opinion and raise funds. Sadly, though Ulster is now living in relative peace and her citizens getting on a lot better with each other, the west of Scotland is having difficulty letting go. Perhaps Rossanna can get to the root of the problem and destroy it. I won't hold my breath though.

Think this is probably my last post in this thread but Walter Smith makes sense to me here:

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3591236/Id-have-quit-if-I-got-bomb-threats.html

Smith revealed Strathclyde Police's Anti-Terrorism Unit spoke to him after Lennon was first sent a suspicious package to instruct him on what to do if he ever received one.

Smith, who retired after leading Rangers to the title for the 10th time last weekend, said: "If any packages had been directed at me then I wouldn't have been in the job any longer. I know Neil said that the threats he received, and the packages that had been intercepted by the police before they could reach him, would not drive him out of his job at Celtic but it would have been the end for me. I would not have been in the job any longer. Nothing is worth that just for a game of football."

"When I first arrived at Rangers to be Graeme Souness' assistant in 1986, the club doctor at the time Donald Cruickshank told me that a little stress in life was no bad thing. His advice was that it was all part of the job and not necessarily damaging to my health. But I have to admit that visit from the police left me shaken."

"Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd be sitting at Murray Park one day listening to a policeman tell me what I should instruct my wife to do if anything suspicious arrived at our house. I have no time for the sectarian aspect which attaches itself to the Old Firm and neither do my Catholic friends. I think if Tommy Burns had still been alive he'd have been horrified by some of the things that have gone on this season."

"When I review the season I know there are times on the pitch over the seven derbies that we won't look back on with pride - and I'm referring to both sides. But there's a religious aspect that has come back for the first time in years and that doesn't help in the Old Firm's claustrophobic environment."

Fine sounding words from Smith - but do you believe him? He says he has no time for the sectarian aspect which attaches itself to the old firm. So what has he done about it in the years over the last 25 years when he's been at Ibrox? He may not have incited it as Lennon has but it is as deeply ingrained at Ibrox as it is at Celtic Park. If he has no time for the sectarian aspect he should have walked away from it or done something about it. He did neither. Guilty by association in my book.

Its not up to the manager or players of a club to do anything about it. Its up to the people who run the business. The people who were happy to take the money from the bigots for so long. The people who stood shoulder to shoulder with those self same bigots in the various clubs and pubs up and down the country that had affiliation with the bigots. Those people only began to act when UEFA and FIFA started to take action. And even then, in the early days, it was feeble. All football grounds have the technology to out the trouble makers but the old firm bowed down to threats of boycotts and turned a blind eye. Now one half of them is going to suffer serious financial loss in staging their first Champions league behind closed doors next season.

Its not up to the manager or players of a club to do anything about it. Its up to the people who run the business. The people who were happy to take the money from the bigots for so long. The people who stood shoulder to shoulder with those self same bigots in the various clubs and pubs up and down the country that had affiliation with the bigots. Those people only began to act when UEFA and FIFA started to take action. And even then, in the early days, it was feeble. All football grounds have the technology to out the trouble makers but the old firm bowed down to threats of boycotts and turned a blind eye. Now one half of them is going to suffer serious financial loss in staging their first Champions league behind closed doors next season.

Rangers wont be playing behind closed doors that's utter nonsense , they are banned from 1 away game .

Fine sounding words from Smith - but do you believe him? He says he has no time for the sectarian aspect which attaches itself to the old firm. So what has he done about it in the years over the last 25 years when he's been at Ibrox? He may not have incited it as Lennon has but it is as deeply ingrained at Ibrox as it is at Celtic Park. If he has no time for the sectarian aspect he should have walked away from it or done something about it. He did neither. Guilty by association in my book.

I think the Smith/Souness era is marked by a massive change in sectarianism reduction at Rangers. No longer are Rangers only signing players on the strength of their religion. Smith was wholeheartedly involved in that. It's never even mentioned these days. What religion is Jelavic? No idea. Papac? No idea. A very different scenario to the pre-Smith days. The club has had some very public pleas and campaigns against religious bigotry. So, I can't blame Smith, McLeish or le Guen for the religious hatred, as I can't blame O'Neill, Jansen, Burns for the excesses of Celtic fans.

Who do I blame for the fans? Largely, the fans. They're adults (at least, the one who aren't children are). They are responsible for their own actions.

I accept that Neil Lennon is being pursued by bigots...but I also accept that there's other reasons why people dislike the guy and might want to pursue him.

What I don't like/accept, regardless of probability, is the fact that those responsible for sending bullets/bombs and the guy who attacked him at Tynecastle are automatically branded as sectarian because of who they attacked, with little thought/question given to why they attacked and anyone who tries to put forward other possible reasons being branded as bad as the perpetrators because they are somehow giving legitimacy to the acts by simply asking "why?".

Most people seem to agree that there's other reasons why Lennon is disliked, and until we know otherwise, any one of these could be the reason for the above mentioned acts. If man can be driven to pursue such acts for reasons of religion, he can just as easily be driven by other things.

Which all comes back to my point about needing to understand the reasons for these attacks.

Surely any doubt that the motive is sectarian is removed by the fact that the "bombers" come from that haven of equality and tolerance that is Kilwinning? Home to Lodge 0 of both the Orange Lodge and the Freemasons, home to the junior team that is Kilwinning Rangers and home, every second Saturday unless it's raining, to a wee orange parade along the High St!

It could all, of course, be coincidence Monsieur Poirot !!

I understand it and so do you.

Its not up to the manager or players of a club to do anything about it. Its up to the people who run the business. The people who were happy to take the money from the bigots for so long. The people who stood shoulder to shoulder with those self same bigots in the various clubs and pubs up and down the country that had affiliation with the bigots. Those people only began to act when UEFA and FIFA started to take action. And even then, in the early days, it was feeble. All football grounds have the technology to out the trouble makers but the old firm bowed down to threats of boycotts and turned a blind eye. Now one half of them is going to suffer serious financial loss in staging their first Champions league behind closed doors next season.

Rangers wont be playing behind closed doors that's utter nonsense , they are banned from 1 away game .

My mistake. They do however have one home UEFA game ban suspended for three years. If the fans dont change that ban will stand. Also the 80,000 euro's fine.

I accept that Neil Lennon is being pursued by bigots...but I also accept that there's other reasons why people dislike the guy and might want to pursue him.

What I don't like/accept, regardless of probability, is the fact that those responsible for sending bullets/bombs and the guy who attacked him at Tynecastle are automatically branded as sectarian because of who they attacked, with little thought/question given to why they attacked and anyone who tries to put forward other possible reasons being branded as bad as the perpetrators because they are somehow giving legitimacy to the acts by simply asking "why?".

Most people seem to agree that there's other reasons why Lennon is disliked, and until we know otherwise, any one of these could be the reason for the above mentioned acts. If man can be driven to pursue such acts for reasons of religion, he can just as easily be driven by other things.

Which all comes back to my point about needing to understand the reasons for these attacks.

Surely any doubt that the motive is sectarian is removed by the fact that the "bombers" come from that haven of equality and tolerance that is Kilwinning? Home to Lodge 0 of both the Orange Lodge and the Freemasons, home to the junior team that is Kilwinning Rangers and home, every second Saturday unless it's raining, to a wee orange parade along the High St!

It could all, of course, be coincidence Monsieur Poirot !!

I understand it and so do you.

You would not be making prejudgements about the people of Killwinning now would you? Tarring them all with the same brush? Showing exactly the traits of a bigot in denial, do you hate proddies that much? or do you just believe all the sensationalised stories you read in the gutter press?

My step-daughters man is from Kilwinning. Knowing his family and friends I could make a judgement. But I wont. As to the statement that the 'bombers' came from Kilwinning. Where did you get that from? One guy from Kilwinning along with one from Saltcoats were charged with posting something in Kilwinning. Three other packages intercepted were posted in Belfast. Kilwinning may well be an orange heartland but that doesn't mean its people are all violent bigots.