Gersnet Analysis: Hypocrite Lennon Tells His 'Own Story'

[Frankie 8,148]

http://www.gersnet.info/fmrangers/newmain/190806.html

 

Firstly I'll start by defining the word hypocrite:

 

Webster's Dictionary has the following:

 

One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

 

Synonym: Deceiver, pretender, cheat.

 

I wouldn't normally waste my or your time by talking about Celtic or one of their players but considering this 'man' is going to be all over the papers for the next few days I think it's only fair we see this wolf without the sheep's clothing.

 

Firstly we'll discuss Lennon's disgraceful claims in Saturday's Daily Record (as proven liar Hugh Keevins did previously a few weeks back) that Rangers didn't sign him in the early 80s as he was a catholic. This simply isn't true and is heresay of the highest order. I'd imagine if this was the case Rangers would not even have asked Lennon over from NI. Why waste time and money if the school-boy signing wasn't to happen because of his religion.

 

Interestingly, Rangers signed John Spencer in 1984 and he was also a catholic. Before that Rangers had dozens of catholic players since our inception in 1872. Certainly seems to counter the Record's claims of signing policies and the like. I'd suggest that Lennon wasn't signed simply because he wasn't good enough. Nothing else.

 

The same article quotes Lennon as saying his father "expressed his grave reservations about me ever signing for Rangers, not least because it could place my personal safety, and that of the rest of my family, at risk from the actions of extremists".

 

Perhaps there is some truth in this statement as I can recall Mo Johnston and Neil McCann both having trouble from such people. Not Rangers fans of course, but Celtic fans who took umbrage when they signed for Scotland's most successful club. Indeed, Johnston has had to make his life away from this country due to the same 'extremists' Lennon's father talks about. Moreover, Lennon himself had trouble from his own fans a few years back - his father self-imposing an exile on himself from Parkhead due to the treatment his son got for his defensive style of play. Do we see a pattern here?

 

Going back to the definition above we read about false pretending and acting. Lennon does a great job of this. Time after time we read sympathising articles from his many similar friends in the Scottish media about how he is the victim of sectarianism and abuse during his time in Scotland. Now, I've no doubt the guy does suffer from the occassional bit of such behaviour and no-one should be subjected to this. Ask Ian Ferguson. Or Mo Johnston. Or Neil McCann. Or maybe wee Lenny should take the advice given to Ian Ferguson by his friend and greatest supporter Martin O'Neill when he was asked about the terrible sectarian taunts Ian Ferguson used to receive from Celtic fans: "He's man enough to ignore it".

 

Speaking of sectarian behaviour and abuse Lennon has been guilty of the very same - strange from a man who abhors it and admits his life has been negatively affected by it? It's been that bad he took it upon himself to call the Rangers bench and fans 'Dirty Orange Bastards' during a heated Old Firm game in November 2004. During the same game he spat on a Rangers scarf right in front of the Copland Road stand. Not that you'll read anything about that in his book I'm sure. Certainly he (or his club) have never shown any regret for his behaviour that day. Indeed, the following year, Celtic made this man their captain. A great role model I'm sure.

 

The following year he was found guilty of threatening behaviour towards officials after another defeat at Ibrox. Some Old Firm (well Rangers) players have actually been convicted of similar behaviour in the past. Not the eternal 'victim' though.

 

Earlier this season we all read the stories about Lennon's cheating with various different women and how he was again guilty of threatening behaviour towards one of his various pregnant girlfriends. Now, some newspapers should never be believed at face value. However, Lennon (and his club) have never denied these stories so I think given the usual urgent PR responses from Celtic when a negative story does appear in the press (it does happen now and again I hear) didn't occur in this case, we can safely assume the stories are true.

 

All of this article so far paints a very different picture from the one you'll read in this weekend's papers. Indeed, one which fits the earlier definition perfectly.

 

Let's not be timid here. Neil Lennon is the worst kind of person one could ever meet. More than half of Glasgow doesn't like the man. More than half of Scotland detests the man. Everywhere he goes he brings the worst out in people. That's NOT, I repeat NOT, because Neil Lennon is a catholic. That's NOT because Neil Lennon is even a Celtic player.

 

It's because Neil Lennon is a cheat. Neil Lennon is a liar. Neil Lennon is a hypocrite who is the very bigot he complains about so often.

 

The same goes for every newspaper and journalist who gives this man (and I use the term loosely) the platform to air his hypocritical views.

[colshy18 0]

what makes lennon think rangers would have wanted a fat, moaning bastard anyway?

 

he`s a shit player and everytime i`ve seen him all he`s ever done is kick players and give the ba` away.

 

anyone see the advert advertising this story on the record on t.v ? lennon READING a sentence to promote it and his eyes keep moving cause he`s too fucking stupid to remember a few lines, he has to read it off the autocue.

 

lennon yer a fag:flipa:

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

I think you've jumped the gun on this one, Frankie. Rangers knew Lennon was a Catholic, according to the Record extract from his book, and were still willing to consider signing him. Jock Wallace even discussed the religious aspect with Lennon's father. So Lennon does not allege that we rejected him because he was a Catholic.

[Frankie 8,148]

Erm, he suggests in the article he would have been the fist catholic to play for Rangers. Not true in the slightest - not even close.

 

"Lennon's background was always going to be a factor and the move never went through."

 

That suggests the move never happened because of his religion. No other reason is given and that's the inference the reader is to make. If his religion wasn't an issue why even mention it in the first place?

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

The reasonable reader wouldn't make that inference (and the unreasonable reader will believe what they want anyway).

 

Do really think that religion wasn't an issue when a traditionally-Protestant club with no Catholics on their books looked at signing a young Catholic kid from Northern Ireland? Do you think it shouldn't have been talked about with the boy and his family?

[Frankie 8,148]

Of course it should have been talked about. If it was - after all you only have that liars word for it.

 

However, the article was written for one reason. It's sensationalist, not all the facts are released, the writing alleges that he'd be the first catholic to play for Rangers until the end of the main story and he doesn't even mention why he didn't sign leaving it to the reader to infer the main reason was his background. Also how would be be a high profile catholic to sign for the club when he was 13?

 

I don't consider myself unreasonable nor stupid and that's what I take from the article. It suits the agenda of a man and a paper who want to make Rangers and their fans look bad at every opportunity.

[nokiss 0]

Great post as usual Frankie. Catholic or not, the man's been nothing but a nuisance since he came north of the border and an extremely bad advert for our game.

 

As Colshy says, a moaning bastard with a massive chip on his shoulder(probably because he's short, fat, pish at fitbaw and plays for scumtic).

 

The c**t will get no sympathy from me. :admin:

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

Of course it should have been talked about. If it was - after all you only have that liars word for it.

 

Would you prefer to believe that Rangers didn't discuss that important aspect?

 

You'd be better spreading around what the article actually says, namely that Rangers knew the boy was a Catholic and were still interested in signing him rather than dealing in supposed inferences.

[Frankie 8,148]

Erm, where did I say say that?

 

I'm only concerned about Lennon inferring that the main reason he didn't sign (and the only reason he gave) was because of his background.

 

Considering the amount of times we have signed catholics before and after him, then I think that's an unfair suggestion to make.

 

As such, I don't need to 'spread anything' other than the fact that Lennon and the Record once again are telling stories to suit their own questionable agendas.

 

I notice you haven't commented on any of the other issues in the article? Why is that?

[Guest ReadyTeddy]

It's not compulsory.

 

The Record article isn't nearly as damaging to Rangers as you've made out. In fact, a straightforward reading of it would produce a positive message about Rangers at the time, namely that we were willing to consider signing a Catholic from Northern Ireland. If anything, the inferences which you have taken from it and spread around in your article are more damaging. My advice (and it's nothing personal) is think a bit more about the message your article sends out to the neutral before you leap to publish.