TLB Served Notice Of Complaint

[calscot 0]

while some of the bile directed towards Lennon was clearly sectarian

 

Is this true or a load of bollocks?

[Juancornetto 1]

Is this true or a load of bollocks?

 

The only song sung about Lennon was the "you're a wanker, you're a wanker" one so no it's not true. It could only have been the odd idiot behind the dugout if any that shouted or sang sectarian stuff at him and that area is packed with Police and Stewards. More lies I'm afraid.

[Guest Dutchy]

Is this true or a load of bollocks?

 

I think, in the context of the article, he's talking about before the new law came into being. When any target by septic suporters were orange bastards and suck like things. The authour could have pointed that out, but it's lemons head he's investigating here.

 

And it's not a pretty sight.

[BlueMazza 0]

So, a Timothy at work this morning said to me, 'more proof of cheating orange refs'. Which made me huh? apparently lemon has the 'head of police' as a witness.

 

Tbh there is so much wrong with that statement it's probably bollocks but I've yet to find out the source.

[der Berliner 3,290]

Well, what about charging his team 10 points for repeated misbehaviour by their manager and players. Then, since they can't help themselves, charge them again for 5 points (to make an example), as their support will not keep themselves from singing offensive and discriminatory chants at the Scumhut during the last OF game. Stuff like "Go home you Huns" or "You're a sad Orange bastard". That will coincident with Rangers getting a last gasp penalty to actually draw or win the tie and clinch League Title No. 55 after all. After that, the Hooped Horrors will call for a(-nother) diaspora and the Native Aliens will finally leave these shores, by-pass the Emerald Isle (ports locked, for some reason) and re-settle in Greenland.

[der Berliner 3,290]

Well, as we already knew ...

 

[der Berliner 3,290]

The discredited journalist's heir at the Times, Phil Gordon, whipped up a pretty strange article about poor Neil Lennon.

 

In response, an article on FF looked at the claims by Gordon (and some press cohorts) ...

 

Why Phil Gordon is both wrong and possibly hyponatremic.

 

By lisburnranger

Updated Tuesday, 27th March 2012

 

A Security Adviser worth his salt?

 

It was with a grin on my face that I today read an article by Phil Gordon of the Times regarding Neil Lennon and his “inhumane” treatment at Ibrox on Sunday. Lennon was refused permission to return to the technical area after half time following an altercation with referee Calum Murray. Lennon referred to it as “a joke”. He apparently didn’t swear at Murray, only told him to do his job properly. He rather conveniently forgets the 45 minutes of vitriol he spouted towards Murray and his fourth official, Ian Brines

 

We were told after the match, by Lennon, that Rangers informed him he couldn’t take his seat in the directors’ box due to concerns for his safety. “That sums up this country”, he told us. It subsequently came to light that it was in fact Celtic’s security consultant who made this recommendation. This brings us back to Phil Gordon’s article which would not have looked out of place in a fanzine or fans’ forum.

 

Regarding the decision not to sit in the directors’ box, Phil asks us, “What security adviser worth his salt would not have come to the same conclusion?” I’d like to put my cards on the table here: I have consulted on security arrangements for many high profile events, including Her Majesty the Queen’s opening of the Scottish Parliament in 2004. I have advised many of Scotland’s police forces on arrangements for visits by members of the Royal Family and senior politicians, as well as operating in high threat environments in numerous countries around the world. I would like to think this makes me ‘worth my salt’ and grants me a bit of legitimacy in answering Mr Gordon’s question as follows:. In short, and not to put too fine a point on it, I absolutely would not have come to the same conclusion.

 

Let me explain a bit about how security planning works. The fundamental basis for all plans is the threat assessment. If you get that bit wrong, then every plan you put in place is potentially flawed. The threat assessment is formulated by identifying who the principal is, who is likely to want to cause them harm, where are they going, and where and when are they most vulnerable.

 

I don’t know who the security adviser used by Celtic was. However, you don’t get to a position like that without having a demonstrable track record of “being worth your salt.” Logically speaking, the Rangers supporters are the people who in this case might want to cause Neil Lennon harm. Within the confines of Ibrox Stadium, Neil Lennon is, without any shadow of a doubt, at his most vulnerable in the dugout area. There he is exposed to potential attackers from all directions, and it is well known exactly where he will be and at what time. He is relying on the security staff stopping any perpetrator.

 

Following a threat assessment, the dugout area was deemed safe for Neil Lennon. Taking into account the known threat and the resources available to combat that threat, any risk was clearly manageable. If the dugout area is deemed safe, then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the directors box would also be safe. Straight away the number of people who could potentially attack him is slashed by around 90%.

 

To get to Neil Lennon, you would have to know beforehand that he was going to be sent from the technical area. You would also have to obtain a seat in the vicinity of the directors’ box. These seats are occupied by season ticket holders and guests of the Club. You would have to climb over fellow supporters, jump over the small barrier surrounding the directors’ box, and climb over those occupying the box. At the same time you would have to rely on no supporter, steward or policeman either stopping you, or removing Neil Lennon from the danger area.

 

Neil Lennon’s safety was not at risk in the directors’ box, and I don’t believe any security adviser “worth his salt” would have assessed it any other way. You have to ask yourself, then, why Neil Lennon watched the second half from the media room rather than the demonstrably safe environment of the directors’ box? We don’t really know the reason for that. What we do know is that Johan Mjallby appeared to spend almost the entire second half on his mobile phone. Who could he have been talking to? Would he have been talking to his wife or his mother perhaps? Of course, he could have been talking to Neil Lennon, who once dismissed from the technical area doesn't seem to have had his human rights infringed to the level of his signal being blocked in the well-kent blackspot of Ibrox Stadium.

 

There are many questions regarding this event which remain, and possibly always will remain unanswered. You would expect a journalist to see this and want to dig a bit deeper to get to the story. You would also expect them to report on the events in a professional manner which takes the facts on their own merits. Phil Gordon’s salt shaker clearly lies empty.

 

IMHO, Lennon was kept from the director's box solely because everyone with an ounce of brain would know that TLB would have gone bonkers in the director's box too - something that could easily have lead to an arrest. Given that the ref was clearly giving the wrong decisions time and again, while Rangers dared to play his beloved Hoops off the park. We all can imagine the antics and behaviour of TLB going along with that and we all would not want to envisage him amongst our more distinguished guests, officials, and directors, would we?

Edited March 28, 2012 by der Berliner

[calscot 0]

Just read the Times article and don't understand it at all. Who exactly is denying Lennon his human rights?

 

Firstly, it seems to me that his human rights were not denied. We have no human right to go anywhere we want in this world, be it because of rules, of danger, threat of danger or perceived threat of danger.

 

But in the end, I can't see how Lennon was barred from going anywhere. Rangers invited him to sit in the stand and he turned it down on the advice of his own security people. I doubt his security people would have physically stopped him from going to the stand and so I can only assume that the person who made the final decision to not go to the stand was Lennon himself. So there was no immediate danger and no-one physically stopping him. Just what is the problem? Seems to me he exercised his free will.

 

If someone advises me not to go near a big hole in the ground and I decide to give it a large berth, are my human rights being infringed by someone? It's just ridiculous.

 

It's the most contrived and exaggerated version of victimhood I've ever seen in my life.

 

On a final note, the only person who stopped Lennon doing his job is himself. He misbehaved in the process of his job and was sent off. Can a sent off player do his job? Or is the referee stopping him from doing so? How is that different from the HMRC picking on Craig Whyte and stopping him from doing his job?

 

Seems to me that if a manager is sent off, just like a player he should be uninvolved for the rest of the game.

[BlueMazza 0]

We're all missing the major point here. Things were not going Celtic's way. What better way to garner attention for the Septic cause and less press about how Rangers played, that Septic bottled it (again) than to make a suggestion that his life is danger because all 40,000+ fans mean Lennon 'real' harm. How to tar an entire fan base easily and deflect attention from the poor performance of the players and the disgraceful behaviour of the manager.

[Guest Dutchy]

I stick by my original opinion, the septic security staff didn't want lemon in the stand, on safety grounds they claim, because he needed the perfect opportunity to spout his well reheared bile filled comment, "That just sums up this country".

 

It's more than the football authorities he needs to explain that one to.