Sorted

Thanks for apology, appreciate it. "Your kids would never have been in danger but now Thomson is unlikely to get his job back, he is unlikely to gain employment and has the next five years to spend mulling over his predicament, letting his mind run in overdrive and then disappear from the radar of all watching him, to god knows where, with god knows how many twisted thoughts running through his head for five years. Who knows he might even decide to move away from the community, which has ostrasised him, next door to you and you would never know." Apart from the remark that I am one of those "easily influenced persons" who "rise up in mock rage", the above is the part of your post which really contradicts your position. If I am understanding you properly (apologies if not) what you are saying is that unless we allow him to continue as normal he presents a risk. Read what you have written and explain to me why is does not give cause for concern?

I look daft now............but (honestly ) the post I replied to has gone!

I didn't realise that you had to have a degree in law to have an opinion worthy of consideration on a judgement. Just yesterday I was asked, by a firm of solicitors, to give an opinion on what a judgement meant operationally regarding a patent being pursued. The worth and merit of that opinion can then be discussed by those suitably qualified but the fact that it was requested must mean it has some value? If we follow your logic then, for example, only dentists should have opinions on teeth, sommeliers opinions on wine, parents opinions on children and, dare I say it, qualified coaches opinions on football. Interesting world you live in eh? For the record, any opinion you have has, in my opinion, some worth. It's good to have opinions but, more importantly the substance to back up what your opinion is based on. My opinion in this case is based on the flow of information within the public domain through all forms (and qualities) of media with particular attention being paid to the views of organisations such as Children 1st and the clear admission of guilt by Thomson. Taking this all into account and my natural instinct to protect my own as much as possible, I form the opinion I express above. What is your opinion based on?

Frings and Koevermans are major signings. Must make a point of watching a bit more MLS as the standard must be a lot better than I thought. Good luck on Saturday!

I agree that he should be suspended now pending an internal enquiry into his suitability to carry on in his position, given the fact the club are losing money through sponsorship and possible future fans due to the schools refusal to carry on with training days but the sherriff in the case stated that he was not considered a risk to children and imposed no restrictions on his working with children or vunerable adults. Also, there is a precident in law that everyone is innocent until proved guilty so if he was suspended when charged pending an internal inquiry and that inquiry forced his dismissal what would have happened if he had been found innocent? There are too many people with ill informed opinions ready to wreck careers. Public opinion, based on cherry picked facts and sensationalised journalism, is what has forced sponsors to withdraw. The legal expert who sat over the case decided on this man's ability to work with children but the tabloids, driven by sales, forced public opinion to drive him out of his career. Normally quite sympathetic to the viewpoint that tabloid journalism is an irresponsible vehicle that causes harm. Not in this case. As far as I'm concerned we have much to thank the "rags" for as they contributed significantly to having the abuser removed. As for the issue of legal fact, it is quite clear to me that the accused plead guilty to the charges that are well documented in the public domain. The judge punished accordingly and deem it necessary to place the guilty party on the SOR for a period of at least five years. For me, the case is quite clear: Charge, admission, guilt, punishment. No grey area for the tabloids to be allowed to manipulate, only public outrage at the stance and arrogance of both the guilty party and his employers. The tabloids have been the vehicle for this to be aired, not the driver. It appears that further cases are now being investigated with the likelihood of new charges a possibility. Are they down to the tabloids giving victims the confidence to come forward? I have not read the full judgement but will. If, as is suggested the judge has deemed him worthy of continuing to be in contact with children I will, as a parent of four, be very disappointed. If I thought, at any stage in their developing life, that my children were to be in contact with such an individual as the guilty party I would have them removed. No debate, no discussion, out. Suggest most parents feel exactly the same. I have no sympathy for Thomson. If his career is over, I suggest he looks in a mirror and he will clearly see the person who is responsible.

I still watch that game and PMSL

It's one thing the likes of Black or O'Connor being (allegedly) involved in recreational drugs use but....... Thomson has been found guilty of (and pled guilty to) a serious offence. The nauseating excuse for an apology released by both Thomson and Hearts is breathtaking. Neither makes any reference to the victims or their families but mearly seeks to justify why he should be given another chance. Quite frankly, the most appalling piece of press I have ever read. This is where we find out who are the good men and those who will stand by and do nothing, choosing to bury their heads in the sand. You can almost excuse Dundee Utd (officials, players and supporters) for the loyalty they have shown to Goodwillie. As yet he has been found guilty of nothing. This is a totally different situation. Can the Hearts management and staff sit back abd do or say nothing? Money does, on occassion, buy silence but should it be able to buy morality? I'm waiting Messers Jefferies and Brown..........

Anyone who views this as in any way positive is misguided. Fact is that FIFA is desperate to abolish (what they view as the unprecedented privilege) the individual teams within these islands and this move will be grasped on. As far as the officials are concerned this is the island of England with GB just another name for it. TB shows exactly the stance I would expect from a former England captain being asked about an English Olympics. I disagree with his view in the strongest possibly terms and cannot understand why anyone who claims to support, follow or have the interests of our national team at heart can think otherwise. Wiser than TB have aired their views very publicly and are diametrically opposed. These people are of course Scottish, Irish or Welsh. I have yet to here an English pundit speak against the move and don't expect to. England and GB are the same aren't they? On a separate note, I think it is nonsensical that football is part of the Olympic games and have no interest in who takes part or wins. Don't have a clue who has won the title in the past or when it started. I can however, name every World Cup winner, the scores in most of the finals, where it took place and who the star was. Surely this is the same for most football fans? Why am I bothered if I have no interest in Olympic football? Simply because it undermines my national team's identity, gives encouragement to those who seek a one team island and is the beginning of the end. STOP IT NOW!

Understand he could barely see out of the dock yesterday. Nice new shiny suit and that wee poor hard done by face. Next instalment to follow soon........

All I ask is that he is better than his cousin.

9/10 and got question 10 wrong. Why did I think Hamilton?

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

Morrissey That's more like it! Cheers CS

Excellent post, it is a shame your sentiments end up being wasted after you are seen to admit to hero worshipping the blatent racist that is Morrissey in another thread, even going as far as to state that you covet a piece of his clothing stolen in the 1980's. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Unaware of Morrisey's alleged racist views. I will explore and if confirmed, happily climb into my Mum's loft and dispose of it. Thank you for pointing that out as, to be fair, I haven't paid much attention to him since 1985 and appreciate the update.

CD I cannot accept that any reasonable individual cab cite Lennon's actions and behaviour, however repulsive, as reason for what he is being subjected to. If one chooses to do so, they choose to seek legitimacy for the abusers not deal with the abuse. The Neil Lennon I see is not a pleassant individual, doesn't behave in a manner that I find acceptable and is not someone I would choose to support conditionally or unconditionally. The purpose of me continuing to post on this thread is to answer those, some more reasonable than other and some whose views surprise me, who continue to seek logical reason or degrees of justification for Lennon's pursuit and apportion blame to him. I also want to know why, as it is clear to me that life is and has been full of equally hideous individuals who have not been subject to the type of abuse he is experiencing. It leads me to the conclusion that it is bigoted and it is sectarian. Some in the full knowledge of what the do and others who enjoy the pursuit. You also posted previously regarding the incident at Tynecastle suggesting that there was no evidence that Hearts support portrayed unionist or bigoted views. I trust you saw the programme on the BBC last night that clearly showed, prior to the attack, a stand full of Hearts supporters belting out a song about being "up to their knees in fenian blood." If the Lennon saga does anything (in addition to bringing shame on our nation) it at least gives us the opportunity to address the issue of sectarianism in our society. Our only hope is that more and more people choose to concentrate on the abuse and seek to stop it. Entirely stand by my comparisons with a Taleban culture as Neildsleftpeg does, to me, seem to be clearly citing issues of Lennon's unacceptable behaviour as being cause for his abuse. In a similar vein, the Taleban justify stoning for adultery and amputation for theft.

Yes he's an absolute angel :baby: Came across this with a quick google search. I would think that Lennon being caught spitting on a Rangers scarf and calling their fans DOB'sin an OF game shows Lennons true colours to be that of a sectarian and bigoted man. Quite why anyone would choose to have such a bigot manage their team can only speak volumes about the mindset of the people appointing him. Lennon is hardly an inspiration to impressionable kids who support Celtic and look up to him. He's a bigot, he's a coward of a man who threatens girlfriends with violence and threats when she is carrying his own child, his business associates are caught in up in an IRA money laundering operation, not exactly the type of person who gains respect in a society of decent people http://boards.footym...4163&vid=144629 Can I ,once again, state that their is nothing in Neil Lennon's character or behaviour that makes him likeable to me (or many others) in any way. Examples given are totally and utterly unacceptable, should be treated as such and have been dealt with by the relevant authorities at the time . From what you are saying, because he portrays unacceptable behaviour, you view his treatment as acceptable? Or put another way, it serves him right! Very sad. Norman Tebbit would be proud of you. Assume you also believe that shop lifters should have their hands chopped off, women having sex outside marriage should be stoned to death and homosexuals are a plague on society? The Highland Taleban is alive and well and using CTO as a means of communication...............

As I see it, an anti social yob is someone who that refuses to conform to any form of authority and/or regulation. This often results in behaviour that is deemed unacceptable to the majority who are willing to conform to authority and/or regulation. There are many examples of such in modern society and they should not be confused with others of a "rebellious" nature who choose to push boundaries but, in the vast majority of cases, conform and take heed of their peers. How that links in terms of our support? I'll let you decide for yourself. From my perspective we have a fair number of the latter who help create a pretty decent atmosphere but, sadly, we also have a number of the former who, no matter where they are and what they are doing, would appear to have trouble enjoying themselves without being offensive and, just as the name suggests, anti social.

is totally over rated and will achieve as much at Tannadice as he did at Easter Road. The sum total of feck all.

No matter what the rules of engagement it has to be Barrowman.

Taking a nose dive perhaps!

Surely we're not surprised?