Neil Lennon and Bombs

[marks]

And therein lies a very big difference. Lennon is catholic but NOT Irish and if you know anything of Ulster you'll know that catholics, historically, have been treated very differently within that country.

Why is Neil Lennon not Irish?

<LI>Both governments must accept the right of Northern Ireland citizens to declare themselves as either British or Irish and that dual citizenship must be provided for those who desire it.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/today/good_friday/synopsis.html

[Sorted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

[Neildsleftpeg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

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

Edited May 18, 2011 by Neildsleftpeg

[marks]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

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

[starchief]

So who's saying Lennon's an angel? He's a little ned in charge of a club that's tried to cheat their way to the title by influencing referees. Does he deserve to be bombed for that? That's the question. Not 'is Neil Lennon very nice'. Not much argument on that one.

And what about McGinn and McCourt? What have they done to deserve being killed / disabled by a bomb?

[Sorted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

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...............

Edited May 19, 2011 by Sorted

[marks]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

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...............

You are of course totally correct, the treatment which Neil Lennon has recieved is unacceptable, he did/does not deserve it, no human being does. Cosider for a moment, however, Lennon's agenda. He is of an age where he knows all too well the tensions which plagued the Irish island, he was brought up as a catholic in Ulster, he is very much aware of how many supporters from both sides of the religious divide cross the Irish sea every week to follow one side or the other of the old firm. Tensions have been felt on that island for generations, those do not totally vanish because the majority of people there have moved towards peace, just look at the recent bomb threats in London, the pizza delivery killings etc. There is still a hardcore, minimal in numbers but still present, on both sides which are following their causes. Neil Lennon may, as a football manager, not deserve any of the treatment he has recieved but, with his knowledge of the political situation, did he provoke it?

There is a minority of idiots who are willing to go to unacceptable legnths to keep the fight going, is Neil Lennon one of that minority?

[CaleyD]

Bit of an unjustified rant there Sorted, see nothing in the posts quoted that said these things justified the bomb threats etc.

What some people seem to forget is that it's possible to cite Lennons actions and behaviour as reasons for what he is being subjected to without condoning it or saying it was justified.

What's sad is that people think that because the guy has received a bomb threat then he can now do no wrong and anyone who brings up any past transgressions is in some way supporting the threats and giving them validity.

[Sorted]

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.

[CaleyD]

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're missing the point....these things do not happen for NO reason. We may not agree with or accept that the reasons are any justification, but it doesn't mean they are not the reasons, or part of the reason.

My, or anyone elses, recognising or citing something as a reason does not automatically mean we are seeking to offer justification and it certainly does not make us sectarian or bigoted.

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."

I've posted no such thing.

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.

I agree, but in dealing with the issue you can't simple sweep the fact that Lennon incites opposition fans under the carpet with the excuse that "he doesn't deserve what is happening to him". Of course he doesn't deserve it, but that doesn't mean he's not adding to the problem with the way he himself acts. You can't say the actions of others are not justified based on his behaviour and then justify what he does by saying it's because of what he is/has been subjected too....or worse, just ignore his actions altogether.

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.

Of course it's cause for his abuse, whether you think it justified or not. The cause/reason lies in the mind of the person committing the act. Lennon is being "abused" for more reasons than his religion or the club he manages...I've given him pelters on several occasions (as have many on here, including some of those berating others for it) but it had nothing to do with religion or him being a Celtic player/manager....but the way the whole thing is being handled, everyone is being shoved into the one "you're sectarian/bigoted" pigeon hole....that does nothing to deal with the problem, in fact in only serves to piss off many of the people you want/need on side in dealing with it when you wrongly categorise them along with the others.

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that ICT fans who give him a bit of stick because of his past antics fall anywhere close to being in the same category as those who physically attack him or send him letter bombs/bullets.....but that's how your point is coming across.

[marks]

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.

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.

[Scotty]

So who's saying Lennon's an angel? He's a little ned in charge of a club that's tried to cheat their way to the title by influencing referees. Does he deserve to be bombed for that? That's the question. Not 'is Neil Lennon very nice'. Not much argument on that one.

This is about the best (and shortest) answer on this thread !!!!

Tend to agree. Neil Lennon is indeed a "ned" and there are plenty of them at most clubs including our own. The biggest difference is that he is a manager of one of the clubs rather than just one of the fans so is a little bit more in the spotlight!

I can see where CD is coming from in saying that some might choose to cite his behaviour as a reason for his abuse. That part of it is true ... some may indeed cite his behaviour and try to call it a reason ... however, IMHO, they are mistaken. No "neddish" behaviour can remotely justify the depth of the reaction he has been subjected to and to use his own behaviour to justify, minimise, or even explain the actions of others is not a reason, its an excuse, and for some people (not all) is merely a mask for what may be the actual reasons ... which can only be bigotry, sectarianism or religious based racism.

I am no fan of Lennon the footballer or Lennon the manager, but I also do not know Lennon the person away from football. Some say he is good, others say he is still a ned. I dont know, and to be frank, I dont care as I am unlikely to ever cross paths with him, make friends with him, or be in his company. If we are not playing Celtic, or he is not saying something that affects ICT then I pretty much try to ignore him (and other neds) altogether.

My perception/opinion of Lennon is based entirely on football and I am sure I am not alone in this. My opinion was formed with the Juanjo incident which proved him to be a cheat and his antics this season certainly didnt help my perceptions of the man, but no matter what, he does not deserve the magnitude or amount of s*** thats being thrown at him this season and then dressed up by some as being his own fault.

Yes he has responsibility for his own actions, and should perhaps have kept his gob shut on a few occasions this season, and Yes he should be taken to task for certain things (and has been for some if not all), and Yes it will shape peoples opinions of him ... but, you dont like Lennon? you say so, you call him out for what he says, what he does, or the persona he projects but you do not use his religion, the club he manages, or anything else to justify a disproportionate reaction to any of that stuff .....

The focus should have been on his whingeing, on his accusations towards refs, on his basic "neddishness" but that has all been lost because of what he has had to endure. In the end, instead of seeing a neddish whingeing football manager we see a victim who is attracting sympathy .... and you know what, based on everything thats happened this season he actually deserves it.

[CaleyD]

The problem is Scotty, it's getting to the stage where people are not allow to call him out for what he says/does because in doing so you then become a member of the "Highland Taliban" or "one of them" who's only trying to justify the sectarian abuse Lennon has been getting.

Also, in regard your description of reason and excuse. I think you may have them the wrong way round (or opposite to the way I understand them). I remember sitting in court watching another case when the judge asked the defendant if he had any excuse to offer for his actions. After he responded the judge thanked him for his honesty but pointed out that what he had done was provide reason, not excuse....he then got hit with the max fine. Excuse, in my book, suggest a justifiable action. Those guilty of letter bombs/bullets etc may have their reasons (however misguided), but they cannot be excused and their actions are not justified.

[Scotty]

Definition: Excuse

A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offence.

Definition: Reason

A cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

Dont think I am mixing them up ..... I always see "excuse" as a get out clause or way to mitigate things by shifting blame to someone else or attributing it to some other action in the same way as some are using Lennon's actions to shift the blame or mitigate the treatment he has suffered. A reason on the other hand is straightforward ... it is what it is, and this is why.

I saw an online definition of the difference that read like this ... seems about right !!

A reason explains why the things are as they are, accepting the accountability for the same. An excuse also explains why the things are as they are; but puts blame on someone else, who is not there to explain or defend - be it a person or situational circumstances

[CaleyD]

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.

[Scotty]

End of the day, my comments were more directed at the perpetrators of the crimes rather than anyone's opinions. Was not calling you or anyone else a bigot !

Bottom line. Neil Lennon is a whinger who tries to gain an advantage in whatever way he can be it cheating to get a fellow professional sent off, trying to influence referees, or generally stirring the pot. when he steps over the line in those circumstances he should be nailed by the football authorities. If he does it outside football then it should be the police dealing with it.

Those who choose to send him bombs or bullets are committing a very serious criminal (even terrorist) act (if the police aim for the highest possible charges as they normally do) which is completely separate and on a totally different level to anything NL may have said or done. The two things may be interlinked and they may cite his behaviour as a reason/excuse for this act (I accept that the difference between the definitions is easily blurred) but at the end of the day its still a criminal act and the judge can choose whether or not to accept the reason/excuse in mitigation if/when they have been found guilty of the actual act. I personally would not accept it and if the charges can be proven would throw the book at the offenders.

As for the pitch invader, that - for me at least - is less clear cut. I had not heard about the sectarian singing that was supposedly going on until someone mentioned it here, but in the midst of a football game, and possibly fuelled by alcohol, this guy just might have a chance of saying Lennon's actions put him over the edge if he gets the right judge! Personally, I do not think its a valid excuse, and would hammer him with a custodial sentence and a maximum term FBO, but lets be honest here ... if there was not already a bunch of stuff going on around Lennon we would not have paid this all that much more attention than any other pitch invaders of recent years. Perhaps that is not right .... but I do believe it is true.

[Yngwie]

Forgive my slightly off topic interlude here, but something on the news regarding Ireland caught my attention.

On hearing that the Queen enjoyed her visit to the Irish National Stud, was anyone else thinking, Ritchie Foran?

[+DoofersDad]

Lots of things Lennon has said and done make people dislike him strongly and stir up sectarian rivalries, but nothing Lennon has ever said or done justifies the threats and abuse he and his family have faced.

But the real culprits here are not Lennon or those who over-react to his odious remarks and actions. The real culprits are Celtic FC who continue to employ Lennon . Celtic are supposed to be signed up to stamping out bigotry from football but their continuing support for Lennon allows and encourages these tensions to simmer and boil over. All the debate about the rise in sectarianism in football would not be happening if Celtic had not employed Lennon in the first place or had dispensed with his services as soon as his behaviour showed he is not fit to manage a football club.

[Neildsleftpeg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-13345655

Of course it's all Neil Lennon's fault and there's nothing sectarian about it..........................!

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...............

You have got me confused here. Where did I state that the treatment he receives is acceptable?

You had stated in a sarcastic manner that it was all Lennons fault. I simply stated that he was no angel!

Just for the record i do not condone the serious nature of what some idiots are trying to do to him re parcels and bullets in post etc.

What I will say is that he has a lot of personality problems that he should be dealing with and not trying to wind up fans of most Scottish teams.

[lukemackay]

is there a polotics forum? cause this doesnt belong in football

Edited May 19, 2011 by lukemackay

[bauhaus]

I dont like the old firm. I didnt like Graeme Souness because he was a vicious ned with a suntan. I dont like Neil Lennon because he is a cheating ned without a suntan. Whats the difference. Say one of those and people tend to agree, say the other and you are a sectarian bigot. I liked Martin O Neill, and I liked Walter Smith, but they both comanded respect, even if they showed their stirring passion for their chosen team. My parentage is one half Western Isles protestant, the other half Irish Catholic, which has left me with just a moral compass, which is very very rarely wrong.

The first two named would argue with their shadow, and aquired very little respect from their opponents, and wrong adoration from their followers. What is worrying is that when either half of the old firm have such a strong character in charge, they bring such a negativety to the table in some ways. However, Souness blew away the protestant only bile that reeked from the blue side and outed many radicals, which was a positive that they have thankfully ( as a team eradicated, but not clearly as the fans culture ). Maybe this is the point where Neil Lennon outs the fans culture, so it does become a socially unacceptable disease to despize because of religion in Scotland. People are prepared to grass up drink drivers these days, and it is now looked upon as being a shamefull thing. Hopefully we are at the tip of the iceberg regarding Rangers/Celtics and apparently the rest of Scotlands shame in religion. Although he is a difficult to like character, Neil Lennon, we may look back in 20 years time and see this as the beginning of the end of this rotten corpse that is sectarianism.

But I fear it is just going to open up old wounds. The oh so brilliant best fans in the world were so clearly chanting IRA tunes at the Hearts game the other week. Hopefully we dont take that dark dark road again, because it spoils it for the rest of us. Start by banning the Union Jack and the Tri-colour at games. They are Scottish teams playing in the Scottish league.

[FoolPhysio]

Whenever the OF fans, either side, sing their obviously sectarian sh1te, why don't we reply with a chant that goes along the lines of "What's that got to do with football?". I suppose it may just encourage them, being the perverse bunch of bigots that they are, but if there was just ONE chant of that nature that EVERY other Scottish club sings back then maybe it will give the stewards and police a heads-up on when these are being sung!

Wouldn't it be funny if it caught on so well that when one of them starts their bigoted song at the next OF match, the other side responds with the new chant?

Now to be honest I couldn't give a monkey's chuff about either of them or what happens at an OF derby, but I do question why we silently accept these songs at our matches with them. They are so ingrained into their repertoire that they possibly don't even realise it, so we have a duty to point it out to them (and the authorities). Perhaps the reason the SPL does little about it is because they cannot hear them from the directors boxes, so we need to give them a bit of a hand . . .

[Alex MacLeod]

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.

That gets away from the subject though. Neil Lennon is a horrible little man who gets many people wound up. He deserves to be chastised, ridiculed and made to see the error of his ways but no matter how anyone tries to spin it the bottom line is niether he nor anyone else deserves to be threatened with physical violence.

[Sorted]

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.

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.

[Caley Stan]

I find racism very silly. Almost too silly to discuss. It's beyond reason. And makes no sense and is ludicrous. I've never heard a good argument in favour of racism.

Morrissey