The police wouldn't have charged him with religiously motivated assault unless they had good reason to do so. Of course, he's innocent until proven guilty.
That's correct on both counts, perhaps you could explaing the law to our learned friend over there who goes by the name Dev. He's a world class WUM dontchaknow
I think I know something about the law. Let me explain: He has been charged with "religiously motivated" assault but that case is yet to be proved. Ok so far? We don't know what the evidence is against him (perhaps verbal) but the Police certainly believe that the attack was motivated by "Religious" grounds? Is that a fair summary? The Police officers who arrested him would not decide what charges he faced, that decision would have been taken by others of a higher rank with more experience. They think it was religiously motivated but YOU don't know or are simply to scared to give an opinion, that's why you are copping out.
So he has been charged with religiously motivated assault, a very specific charge. Did the Police simply assume it was Religion which provoked him and therefore added that to the charge with no evidence or did they simply lie and say that he shouted a religious insult as he attempted to attack Lennon? Let me have a stab in the dark here. "You don't know". What you actually mean is that you do know,(or at least suspect) but you think that by admitting it you have either lost an argument or somehow siding with Neil Lennon. It's all rather pathetic to be honest, at least some people are up front with their opinions, however malicious they may be but you are one of that sad breed who are almost as bad as the bigots, an apologist and a denier.
I don't know, neither do you, it's just dangerous to assume, especially with Libel laws being used with such vigour these days. I'll be steering clear of making libelous comments for now Russ mate Dev. I don't know, neither do you, it's just dangerous to assume, especially with Libel laws being used with such vigour these days. I'll be steering clear of making libelous comments for now Russ mate Dev. Don't be a complete ****ing tit mate
Fair enough you personally may not dislike him - but you gave the reason that he is despised (your words) because of his pitch side antics. If so how does that fit in with the fact he was despised long before he was a manager??
Probably the same reasons, for how he conducted himself on the field of play. I'm not denying that some people hate him for being an RC NI Republican, that would be silly of me. But his combatitive style of play made him a hate figure, the same way Novo was despised by everyone, the same reason that Fegruson was despised. He is also associated with a time when Celtic were dominent in Scotland and that in itself may be an underlying factor here. When we look through the recent history of Scottish football, Celtic have had many NI/ROI players, as have most Scottish sides. None of them got the ****e that Lennon gets in the stadium including Ibrox Bonner, Rogan, Byrn, Morris, Keane, McCourt, McGinn, and none of the ****e that Lennon gets. Before the AYE BUTS... come in, I'm merely answering the question asked....
I agree Lennon gets it more than anyone else. and i've no doubt his snarling face doesnt do him any favours! However i dont understand what you mean by his on field antics etither? Whats he ever done to get the abuse he does? I want instances, not just he was an agressive ****. Alex Fergusons touchline antics have been worse, even arsene Wengers temper has got the better of him and both their attitudes at times have been shocking Souness was an agressive ****, he did worse on the pitch than Lennon - no death threats Ferguson - ditto Novo - got the internet threats but thats as far as it went - no actual attmept to harm What is it that makes a footballers antics/attitude lead to a constant campaign of hate? He is just a footballer/manager. Its football. He doesnt want to murder all protestants he just is passionate (sometimes too passionate) about trying to make his team the best it can be?
Even if you believe he's a prick that still isn't justification for what's been happening to him. If it was you would have been beaten to death long ago
Cupping ears, calling referees cheats, squaring up to Ally McCoist does not equal parcel bombs, bullets and death threats. In no sane way should any one of you be using the 'but' word when comparing his transgressions this season or other seasons to what he is getting in return. It's the 'but' that is fostering this bigotry - and yes it is complete and utter bigotry. Maybe not in the sense of religious or even ethnic but in the sense that there is absolutely no rational for the hatred and treatment of a man for being a bit verbally controversial. Edge you have the makings of a sensible person, can you bring yourself to unconditionally condone death threats, bullets in the post, attacks on the pitch and parcel bombs without using the 'but' word? Even if you say it I don't think you truly believe it, I think a lot of people genuinely believe that he somehow deserves this treatment - and this is bigotry in it's purest form.
The old "add a laugh smiley" trick? You spent 4 pages denying the attacks were sectarian then you have the affrontery to claim you are not denying they were? I'm starting to think you are Treville because you are certainly just as stupid. Cue Edge calling me "Russ" or "Mate"
