Fan cleared of Lennon assault !

[The Mantis]

I don't really see any difference between Lennon and Souness. If somebody had managed to get on the pitch and give Souness a well-deserved swipe across the pus, nobody would have been claiming sectarian motives for it.

BTW as Lennon claimed that he felt 'something brush his ear' then technically he was assaulted, but in practice the guy only intended to assault him, but never quite made it. In the same way that if you get caught with a carload of white powder which you thought was cocaine but turns out to be Vim, you get off

[Council Juice]

Complete injustice.

Cant believe Alan Thompson got completely off the hook after throwing a man, who was merely out for a jog (hence the tracksuit bottoms etc) to the ground, before proceeding with his partner in crime to fire a volley of hateful and threatening abuse at this dazed individual. In fact some pictures as I'll put up show him kicking the poor chap. Shocking.

In all seriousness whether he admitted assault or not, he didn't commit any. His only crime was breach of the peace by invading the pitch with the intention of striking Lennon. Alan Thompson however grabbed him before any attack could take place and any contact with Lennon could be seen as both accidental and an attempt to stay footed. Therefore it cannot be proven that this contact, with testemony or not, was assault. And it cannot be proven that during the noise of a football game that the man uttered sectarian abuse. Quite simple, and in fact the correct result according to the law (I dont believe there is a charge of attempted assault in existence.)

[starchief]

In all seriousness whether he admitted assault or not, he didn't commit any. His only crime was breach of the peace by invading the pitch with the intention of striking Lennon...(I dont believe there is a charge of attempted assault in existence.)

Attempted assault IS assault. You don't have to connect with your blow, merely threaten to.

They say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Given that the penalty for breach of the peace is far lower than assault, I see no reason for someone being held on remand for that in the future. It's an open ticket to lunatics to attack.

What's to stop any other manager being attacked if we don't clamp down on this? I fully expect to see Celtic supporters attacking someone this season, with potentially explosive results. Would it be a surprise for McCoist to come away with a broken nose, whilst the supporters charge each other on the pitch? What's to lose with such a small offence?

[ilpadrino]

Complete injustice.

Cant believe Alan Thompson got completely off the hook after throwing a man, who was merely out for a jog (hence the tracksuit bottoms etc) to the ground, before proceeding with his partner in crime to fire a volley of hateful and threatening abuse at this dazed individual. In fact some pictures as I'll put up show him kicking the poor chap. Shocking.

In all seriousness whether he admitted assault or not, he didn't commit any. His only crime was breach of the peace by invading the pitch with the intention of striking Lennon. Alan Thompson however grabbed him before any attack could take place and any contact with Lennon could be seen as both accidental and an attempt to stay footed. Therefore it cannot be proven that this contact, with testemony or not, was assault. And it cannot be proven that during the noise of a football game that the man uttered sectarian abuse. Quite simple, and in fact the correct result according to the law (I dont believe there is a charge of attempted assault in existence.)

No, there's no "attempted assault" because that is assault - an assault starts with the intent.

In England and Wales, "battery" is the the physical contact part of an attack, so assault never involves physical contact.

[Council Juice]

How often do police state that they can't do anything unless either a) a direct threat was made (was this the case?) or b) unless he actually made to do, or actually caused harm?

In this case, no blow was thrown. At all (other than by Alan Thompson but that was entirely understandable). His behaviour WAS threatening, but does that constitute a threat of assault in the eyes of the law? More often than not it does not and is considered to be a breach of the peace. As was the case here. It could not be proven (generally a cop off) that he did threaten to attack or attack Neil Lennon. It is a complete sham, yes. Had it not been for Thompson he may well have struck him. Why should we have to wait until someone gets hurt before sorting this type of thing out? The law however was used in all it's technicalitity in this case.

I hope he is banned from Tynecastle for life. A football banning order should be used. I dont know how far they can go.

[ilpadrino]

How often do police state that they can't do anything unless either a) a direct threat was made (was this the case?) or b) unless he actually made to do, or actually caused harm?

In this case, no blow was thrown. At all (other than by Alan Thompson but that was entirely understandable). His behaviour WAS threatening, but does that constitute a threat of assault in the eyes of the law? More often than not it does not and is considered to be a breach of the peace. As was the case here. It could not be proven (generally a cop off) that he did threaten to attack or attack Neil Lennon. It is a complete sham, yes. Had it not been for Thompson he may well have struck him. Why should we have to wait until someone gets hurt before sorting this type of thing out? The law however was used in all it's technicalitity in this case.

I hope he is banned from Tynecastle for life. A football banning order should be used. I dont know how far they can go.

In most circumstances, the police will go for breach of the peace because it's easier to prove. In most circumstances though, they don't have the quality of video and still images that they did here.

Regardless of any other considerations though, this is assault.

[starchief]

According to Scots law, "an assault may be constituted by threatening gestures sufficient to produce alarm" including jumping over a shop counter whilst wearing a ski-mask. No contact necessary.

[Council Juice]

The gesture part is very difficult to prove however. The act of running in a mans direction is obviously not beyond reasonable doubt therefore unproven. It's worrying however that there isn't at least a more hardline in between breaching the peace and assault.

[Alex MacLeod]

Splitting hairs a bit CD but the CPS have no jurisdiction in Scots Law. The Crown Prosecution Service is south of the border. The Procurator Fiscal north. Which brings me to the one part of this debate that is being missed. This guy has not been found guilty of the charge but neither has his innocence been proven. There are times, in Scots Law, when a jury cannot come to agreement on all the facts before them so choose to use the great 'get out' of Not Proven. A finding totally unique to our legal system but one that has freed people for far greater crimes in our history.

The PF, for some unknown reason, believed he or she could get the first conviction of religiously aggravated assault, under recent changes to the law, in Scotland yet the balance of proof was against him. He would have based his reasoning on the police investigation and should have realised that a conviction on this charge was not possible. Only one witness, out of all those around, could catagorically state exactly what the defendant had said during his attack. Others heard something totally different. Some could not say one way or the other what was said. All that would have been reflected in the police witness statements and passed on to the PF. Did this person then base his/her judgement on the integrity of a 'former police officer' or did he become blinded by the government crackdown on such crime. I, dont know but one thing is for sure and that is that his judgement could not have been based on the full police enquiry findings. Either that or the police did not carry out the level of investigation that should have been carried out. Had a charge of common assault been proffered in the first instance then I'm sure a conviction would have been forthcoming.

[Council Juice]

It seems as though in some blind stuppor the procecutor fiscal has sought the opportunity to nail someone with the new impotus the government has on sectarianism, without being realistic in the amount of weight one witnesses statement would have in front of jury. Any intelligent member of a jury will know that a witnesses former job title has no bearing on his evidence anyway. It may be taken into consideration however most will be of the conclusion that many a law enforcer is as susceptible to sensationalism as the rest of us.

Still, there should be ways around the not proven verdict, which a lot of the time essentially just says "we ken ye did it, we just canne prove it for the colour o shi...."

[dougiedanger]

Bottom line....the CPS thought they had a stick on case to put someone away for a sectarian related crime. They got caught up in the media frenzy (which had him pinned as guilty of being a bigot before the evidence was ever heard)...thought "hey, we could make an example of someone here and really stamp home our authority and show we are serious about tackling the issues".

Unfortunately, they didn't have the evidence to support the charges. The court process WORKED AS IT SHOULD. We can argue the rights and wrongs of no Assault Charge being upheld, but it would have been an even bigger injustice to have found him guilty of acting with racial/religious hatred without sufficient evidence.

The real danger now is that those on the Jury become victims of the, well publicised over the years, abuse that we know some Celtic fans* are capable of dishing out to people who do or say things they don't like.

(* Fans of other clubs have also been guilty of such things, but we are talking about a Celtic related incident here)

So Lennon and several other high profile Celtic supporters are sent bullets and put in fear of their lives by death threats that beyond any reasonable doubt come from supporters of another football club, and then Lennon himself is subject to a disgraceful show of hatred at Tynecastle, and yet the "real danger" in the whole thing comes from those nasty "Celtic fans," who to my knowledge have not retaliated to the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football.

This whole episode was a disgrace to Scottish football and the whole nation. Even the Sunday Post condemned it at the weekend!

The real issue here and probably the "real danger" lies in the blind denial that there are sectarian issues at play in all of this, and in the implicit idea that somehow Lennon, Celtic, and their fans deserve it, that "they bring it on themselves."

After all, they are not "the people".

[starchief]

I agree with almost everything you said except "the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football"

I was very much anti-Celtic last year but absolutely not anti-Catholic. Their gamesmanship that led to a referee's strike and constant whining that their multi-million assembled squad was being harshly treated smacked of the Machiavellian hand of John Reid. Under Tommy Burns I loved to watch Celtic. So Celtic did bring contempt upon themselves but they didn't bring what was, IMO, a blatant assault and death threats. I think it's important to make it clear they can be separate things. Booing Lennon and wanting Celtic to lose isn't necessarily sectarian.

BTW, if you simply meant the death threats and assault, then I fully concur.

[dougiedanger]

I agree with almost everything you said except "the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football"

I was very much anti-Celtic last year but absolutely not anti-Catholic. Their gamesmanship that led to a referee's strike and constant whining that their multi-million assembled squad was being harshly treated smacked of the Machiavellian hand of John Reid. Under Tommy Burns I loved to watch Celtic. So Celtic did bring contempt upon themselves but they didn't bring what was, IMO, a blatant assault and death threats. I think it's important to make it clear they can be separate things. Booing Lennon and wanting Celtic to lose isn't necessarily sectarian.

BTW, if you simply meant the death threats and assault, then I fully concur.

Yes, thanks, that's what I meant.

We can all dislike Celtic or any team for the reasons you suggest, and it certainly does not make us sectarian to do so.

Nor does it implicate us in sectarianism if we admit there is a sectarian problem in our country. To constantly deny its existence however is to perpetuate the problem (not meaning you obviously).

[CaleyD]

Bottom line....the CPS thought they had a stick on case to put someone away for a sectarian related crime. They got caught up in the media frenzy (which had him pinned as guilty of being a bigot before the evidence was ever heard)...thought "hey, we could make an example of someone here and really stamp home our authority and show we are serious about tackling the issues".

Unfortunately, they didn't have the evidence to support the charges. The court process WORKED AS IT SHOULD. We can argue the rights and wrongs of no Assault Charge being upheld, but it would have been an even bigger injustice to have found him guilty of acting with racial/religious hatred without sufficient evidence.

The real danger now is that those on the Jury become victims of the, well publicised over the years, abuse that we know some Celtic fans* are capable of dishing out to people who do or say things they don't like.

(* Fans of other clubs have also been guilty of such things, but we are talking about a Celtic related incident here)

So Lennon and several other high profile Celtic supporters are sent bullets and put in fear of their lives by death threats that beyond any reasonable doubt come from supporters of another football club, and then Lennon himself is subject to a disgraceful show of hatred at Tynecastle, and yet the "real danger" in the whole thing comes from those nasty "Celtic fans," who to my knowledge have not retaliated to the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football.

This whole episode was a disgrace to Scottish football and the whole nation. Even the Sunday Post condemned it at the weekend!

The real issue here and probably the "real danger" lies in the blind denial that there are sectarian issues at play in all of this, and in the implicit idea that somehow Lennon, Celtic, and their fans deserve it, that "they bring it on themselves."

After all, they are not "the people".

No...I never said the real danger "in all this", I said the real danger "now"...i.e. following on from what's happened in court.

Certain people see the outcome as an injustice and unfortunately...much the same as those who have made threats, sent bullets etc...don't have two brain cells to rub together and will doubtless feel justified in taking the opportunity, should it present itself, to "right the wrong" by some means or other.

That takes nothing away from the seriousness of the incident that occurred at Tynecastle...which is the subject being discussed here, not everything else that happened.

I don't deny there's an issue with sectarianism in this country, I just don't buy into the "every and all problems are related to sectarianism" line that always gets thrown out there. The structure of your argument only serves to prove that as you seem unwilling or unable to separate the attack at Tynecastle from other things that have gone on and just want to lump it all together and stick it in that handy pigeon-hole.

Until we accept, identify and deal with all the different issues that exist then we'll only see more and more cases like this where we're so blinkered by "sectarianism" that no other reason can possibly exist and people will continue to escape proper punishment on technicalities.

Authority needs to be firm, but it also needs to be fair, honest and proportionate on a case by case basis. Just because others who have attacked (verbally or otherwise) Lennon may have sectarian motives, does not mean everyone who attacks or dislikes him have those same motives. What's more, just because Lennon/Celtic are the victim in this instance does not mean they are above reproach for the part they have played in fuelling the problems over the years.

[The Mantis]

So Lennon and several other high profile Celtic supporters are sent bullets and put in fear of their lives by death threats that beyond any reasonable doubt come from supporters of another football club, and then Lennon himself is subject to a disgraceful show of hatred at Tynecastle, and yet the "real danger" in the whole thing comes from those nasty "Celtic fans," who to my knowledge have not retaliated to the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football.

This whole episode was a disgrace to Scottish football and the whole nation. Even the Sunday Post condemned it at the weekend!

The real issue here and probably the "real danger" lies in the blind denial that there are sectarian issues at play in all of this, and in the implicit idea that somehow Lennon, Celtic, and their fans deserve it, that "they bring it on themselves."

After all, they are not "the people".

Dougie, I refer you to my previous answer regarding Souness. Souness and his band of brothers were universally despised in the same way as Lennon was last season.

Those you refer to as 'the people' are widely despised, mainly because of their triumphalism and arrogance, but they would not have ascribed sectarian motives to this, neither now, nor back in the days of Souness.

The other lot (or 'not the people' as they could perhaps be called in a reference to a once famous fanzine ) seem to have a problem separating sectarian motives from other motives.

And no, I'm not excusing the actions of a handful of lunatics who see fit to send bullets or attack Lennon in the street. Thankfully, to most of us it is just a game.

[starchief]

Bullets sent to the annoying Lennon - not necessarily sectarian.

Bullets sent to the annoying Lennon and Celtic's irritating lawyer (the name escapes me) - not necessarily sectarian.

Bullets sent to the annoying Lennon, Celtic's irritating lawyer and the unassuming, barely interviewed McGinn and McCourt - sectarian.

I can't think of any other motive in picking out those last two. Swap them with Brown and Hooper, then there might be an argument but that didn't happen.

[dougiedanger]

So Lennon and several other high profile Celtic supporters are sent bullets and put in fear of their lives by death threats that beyond any reasonable doubt come from supporters of another football club, and then Lennon himself is subject to a disgraceful show of hatred at Tynecastle, and yet the "real danger" in the whole thing comes from those nasty "Celtic fans," who to my knowledge have not retaliated to the very real anti-Celtic (and no doubt anti-Catholic) intimidation that characterised last season's Scottish football.

This whole episode was a disgrace to Scottish football and the whole nation. Even the Sunday Post condemned it at the weekend!

The real issue here and probably the "real danger" lies in the blind denial that there are sectarian issues at play in all of this, and in the implicit idea that somehow Lennon, Celtic, and their fans deserve it, that "they bring it on themselves."

After all, they are not "the people".

Dougie, I refer you to my previous answer regarding Souness. Souness and his band of brothers were universally despised in the same way as Lennon was last season.

Those you refer to as 'the people' are widely despised, mainly because of their triumphalism and arrogance, but they would not have ascribed sectarian motives to this, neither now, nor back in the days of Souness.

The other lot (or 'not the people' as they could perhaps be called in a reference to a once famous fanzine ) seem to have a problem separating sectarian motives from other motives.

And no, I'm not excusing the actions of a handful of lunatics who see fit to send bullets or attack Lennon in the street. Thankfully, to most of us it is just a game.

I do see what you are saying and respect your point of view, but it seems to suggest the old idea that one lot is as bad as the other, when it appears more complicated than that. One is not simply the flip side of the other.

Souness & co may have been unpopular, but they never received bullets or bombs.

I agree absolutely that it is only a game, and that is how it should be.

[The Mantis]

but it seems to suggest the old idea that one lot is as bad as the other

Or maybe it just shows my impartiality