A Minutes Silence Please - St Neil

[barca72 440]

Even if you are right does any of that justify verbal and physical attacks on a football manager though?

 

 

Amms, I don't know if you are going to get a satisfactory answer to your question of why the TLB is almost universally hated by anyone other than the paedo-loyal. Everyone you ask will have a different point of view, but evidently the emotion is there. My consensus would be that the verbal abuse is alright ( the fans pay their money, they get their say ), but no one would condone the physical abuse. It may entirely remain one of life's little mysteries.

Someone said in a previous thread a while ago, that we all like to put people in little boxes. I would say that for me Mr. Lennon fits comfortably into the box labelled - 'Street Ned'.

[amms 0]

Managers are hired for their football philosophy, in Lennon's case he was hired on the cheap and for his 'Celtic minded' philosophy as well, a trouble maker who the Republican element can rally to.

 

Most managers carry themselves with dignity and respect and stay out of trouble, he on the other hand seams to be immersed in the drink culture when out on the town and pays for it for that profile. Stay off the drink and out of trouble would be my advice to him.

 

I agree that being a Celtic supporter and ex player helped him get the managers job but I can't help but feel his having played under O'Neill was the biggest factor in him getting the role permanently.

 

Plenty managers like a drink, ours included, but I have been surprised at where Lennon chose to go for a drink, in the past at least. But from memory he's only had one incident when he was out for a drink and that was the time in Ashton Lane. Now I was surprised he chose to rise to whatever was said to him but he was drinking in an Irish bar in an up market part of the city, I'd have thought that was fairly 'safe' to be fair. How much of what's happened to him would you say he was actually responsible for?

[amms 0]

He represents your average knuckledragging Celtic supporting thug, the ones who live their lives supporting a "cause" that he neither understands nor chooses. 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation bigots.

 

Mr Lennon keeps some very unsavoury company, some of whom have ripped him off to the tune of £600k in dodgy land deals and shady business ventures along the way. It's well known that Neil counts a few high ranking IRA men in his extended circle of friends.

 

I'm not sure it's well known but it might be true, I've not heard it before though. I don't know though, I'm not aware of him expressing any political views publicly that would attract the lunatic fringe. Indeed I'd have thought his playing for Northern Ireland 40 times would have put the more radical republicans off.

[amms 0]

I think it's fair to say that his various actions over the years are reflective of his general character and personality.

 

Spitting on a Rangers jersey and shouting sectarian abuse (DOBs) at the Rangers dugout at Ibrox.

 

Declaring that he was ‘going to war’ with the SFA and referees then proceeding to act in a threatening manner while spitting verbal abuse and vitriol towards referees up and down the country.

 

His loutish actions while 'managing' have seen him sent to the stands by the ref too many times to list and there's been several occasions where referees who've let him off with his abusive and threatening actions have been asked to file reports on him by Police match commanders, such was the severity of it.

 

He surely has the worst disciplinary record of any Scottish manager in decades and if you had to look back through the incidents I think you'd find that it's maybe been deliberately glossed over in the MSM and he's actually been let off lightly in a disciplinary sense.

 

Despite the lack of effort from our press and media to show him for what he is, his antics are still well recorded and there's dozens upon dozens of pictures online of him spitting venom at referees and match officials.

 

Then there's his actions towards Rangers players; verbal, sectarian and racist abuse have all been accused of him.

 

How much of what he's accused off is actual and how much is apocryphal?

 

Having a go at referees is surely day one at manager school. Deflect from the players and the performance when they're bad and increase the pressure on refs to give you the 50/50 calls. Don't we all want our managers to do that?

Graeme Souness spent plenty of time in the stand, was frequently in trouble with refs and the SFA and indeed cited the SFA and the League as his main reason for leaving Rangers, and was capable of genuine acts of thuggery on the pitch. But I never thought he was a thug off it, quite the opposite in fact. Was Jim McLean a thug or Alex Ferguson, what about Terry Butcher? Lennon's fellow countryman, Kenny Sheils, no longer gives interviews on what he claims are medical grounds because he kept falling foul of referees and the SFA. I don't now Zappa, I'm not sure Lennon is that much worse than dozens of other managers to be fair.

[amms 0]

Amms, I don't know if you are going to get a satisfactory answer to your question of why the TLB is almost universally hated by anyone other than the paedo-loyal. Everyone you ask will have a different point of view, but evidently the emotion is there. My consensus would be that the verbal abuse is alright ( the fans pay their money, they get their say ), but no one would condone the physical abuse. It may entirely remain one of life's little mysteries.

Someone said in a previous thread a while ago, that we all like to put people in little boxes. I would say that for me Mr. Lennon fits comfortably into the box labelled - 'Street Ned'.

 

I think you are right Barca, I'm very unlikely to get a satisfactory answer because I'm not sure there is one. We allow our normal standards of decency to be suspended when it comes to football, we partake or excuse behaviour we'd never do normally and we're so blinkered we can't see properly. At least I am.

 

But I realised recently as I tried to explain to my wife why Lennon attracted so much trouble that I actually couldn't.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I agree that being a Celtic supporter and ex player helped him get the managers job but I can't help but feel his having played under O'Neill was the biggest factor in him getting the role permanently.

 

Plenty managers like a drink, ours included, but I have been surprised at where Lennon chose to go for a drink, in the past at least. But from memory he's only had one incident when he was out for a drink and that was the time in Ashton Lane. Now I was surprised he chose to rise to whatever was said to him but he was drinking in an Irish bar in an up market part of the city, I'd have thought that was fairly 'safe' to be fair. How much of what's happened to him would you say he was actually responsible for?

 

Many TV, film, and football stars get stalkers and trolls following them, purely because of their fame. Lennon on the other hand is infamous so get the attention of a different style of nutter, yes i firmly believe he does bring some of the trouble on himself because he's seen as Bam on the lash, some of the attention he gets is purely because of the fame and notoriety.

[Zappa 0]

How much of what he's accused off is actual and how much is apocryphal?

 

There's been plenty evidence of his actions documented by film & photography over the years.

[Zappa 0]

I'm not sure it's well known but it might be true, I've not heard it before though. I don't know though, I'm not aware of him expressing any political views publicly that would attract the lunatic fringe. Indeed I'd have thought his playing for Northern Ireland 40 times would have put the more radical republicans off.

 

The Goon Brigade have backed him to the hilt with tribute banners and songs. On 15 May 2011 the GB did a huge Lennon tribute during their game at CP and after the game during a lap of honour Lennon made one of these symbolic gun gestures towards the GB with his arms like what the GB members do themselves. It's a symbol of an armalite.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I've stayed out of this thread because I think I'm a little out of step regarding Neil Lennon.

 

Let me start by saying that when he was a player I really, really didn't like him. It was Peter Grant levels of dislike I felt, indeed probably more so at times. I've tried to rationalise why I felt that way and I'm fairly certain it has nothing to do with his religion or place of birth. I might be deluding myself but I don't think I am. Some players just have that ability to wind you up, something about them raises the hackles. The fact Lennon was at Celtic and a fairly successful Celtic at that probably amplified that dislike.

 

Where I struggle is with the reaction to incidents with Lennon. 'We' should unequivocally condemn physical threats and attacks on him, as we should when they happen to anybody really. It concerns me that too often Rangers supporters look to explain that 'he brings it on himself' rather than say 'nobody should be physically attacked because they're a footballer/manager'. The truth is Lennon has experienced far, far worse than anyone associated with Scottish football has ever before. That's very embarrassing. Lennon doesn't create unemployment, he hasn't sent young men to their deaths in foreign fields for oil or influence, he's not closed your local school/hospital/community centre and he's never promised to improve your life or standard of living and then failed to deliver it. I worry sometimes we're in danger of losing sight of who Lennon is. He's not a politician, he's not a soldier and he's not stood for office. Because if he was you could provide a context and an argument that 'he brings it on himself.

 

The horrible truth is Lennon could have been killed whilst living and working in Glasgow simply because of the job he does. That's not hyperbole that's a fact. At some point I think those of us in our support who aren't mental cases need to be a little more vocal in condemning those who perpetrate 'attacks' on Lennon and less vocal in explaining why 'he brings it on himself', because I don't believe he does. This latest incident didn't involve Rangers supporters so condemning it shouldn't be hard, yet it seems it still is. Our less than steadfast condemnation allows the Angela Haggertys of this world to perpetuate her own wildly skewed world views despite no evidence to the back them up. Some of what Lennon has experienced was sectarian but most wasn't, most was simply thuggishness, we should be able to condemn that without thinking about it.

The manager of Celtic should be able to talk about football, should be able to have a drink in the city, should be able to watch other sides play in the main stand without fear of physical abuse far less actual physical attack.

 

I still dislike Lennon but I think he has a point in terms of asking why he attracts this venom and why it is sometimes explained as being his own fault. I'm afraid that's a little like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

 

I always look forward to your lengthier posts, amms, because there are invariably well made points and reasoned arguments providing food for thought.

But on this one, I think you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

Firstly, Lennon is not being 'attacked' "because he's a footballer/manager". He's not being 'attacked' because he's Catholic. He's not being attacked because he's from Northern Ireland. He's not being 'attacked' because he's the embodiment of the successful and stylish Celtic of O'Neil's era.

There have been any number of any of the aforementioned who have lived and worked in this country and have been welcomed (opposition fans excepted) with no trouble from anybody.

The question that nobody can ask is "what's different in this case?" Why did all these people manage to live here without any problem when Lennon can't?

 

Secondly, in what way is it a "fact" that he could have been killed? Which life threatening situations has he been involved in that placed his life in danger?

I think when we look at these "attacks" we find that there is less to them than meets the eye. Bullets in the post and "bombs" that could have been made by Delia Smith are unpleasant but hardly life-threatening. Having a drunken Jambo fall down in front of you must be upsetting when it happens, but it's not goingto reduce your lifespan by much.

 

The latest nonsense was reported as Lennon being driven from Tynecastle after being spat at and having coins and bottles rain down on him and suffering tirades of abuse from other fans. Fact was that there was no spitting and no bottles and no verbal abuse (other than any OF manager could expect to receive and he wasn't driven out, he left half way through the second half as is customary. One ned chucked one coin that landed nowhere near lennon. That was the extent of the 'attack'. I'm not, by any means, justifying it.

 

Do I think anybody should be attacked or threatened? Of course not.

Do I condemn anybody who (actually) attacks or (actually) threatens Lennon. Of course I do.

Do I give a toss? Not really.

 

Lennon has been largely responsible for the vitriol which follows him wherever he goes; His actions and words have been the cause, not his heritage - and if yobbish behaviour ends up attracting yobs, it's hardly surprising. Lennon is a yob whose behaviour attracts other yobs, he is not an innocent party who is being abused by stronger people who identify him as weak and want to exert power over him which is why your rape victim analogy is ill considered.

 

You see, Lennon embodies a strain of self-obsession, self-importance, dishonesty and deluded hypocrisy that forms one of the strongest character traits of the "celtic minded".

His manner is invariably snide, sneering and disrespectful and frequently poisonous. Let's not forget that he was the major figure in the poisoning of the game that caused the referees to go on strike and saw games in this country having to be refereed by scabs from Israel and elsewhere. Let's not forget that he whined incessantly about being victimised whilst he and his club ruined the careers of good men.

 

He belongs to a school that perpetuates the myth of the Irish Catholic diaspora suffering at the hand of the Scottish Protestant establishment, playing to the galleries of plastic paddies with tales of anti-irish racism and feeding the gullability of imaginary armalite toting wannabe Rebels, whereas in fact Scots of Irish Catholic heritage have done enormously well for themselves over the past century. Not bad, in a country that is supposed to be bigotted and sectarian to its core., according to Neil and his ilk.

[barca72 440]

Lennon has been largely responsible for the vitriol which follows him wherever he goes; His actions and words have been the cause, not his heritage - and if yobbish behaviour ends up attracting yobs, it's hardly surprising. Lennon is a yob whose behaviour attracts other yobs, he is not an innocent party who is being abused by stronger people who identify him as weak and want to exert power over him which is why your rape victim analogy is ill considered.

 

You see, Lennon embodies a strain of self-obsession, self-importance, dishonesty and deluded hypocrisy that forms one of the strongest character traits of the "celtic minded".

His manner is invariably snide, sneering and disrespectful and frequently poisonous. Let's not forget that he was the major figure in the poisoning of the game that caused the referees to go on strike and saw games in this country having to be refereed by scabs from Israel and elsewhere. Let's not forget that he whined incessantly about being victimised whilst he and his club ruined the careers of good men.

 

He belongs to a school that perpetuates the myth of the Irish Catholic diaspora suffering at the hand of the Scottish Protestant establishment, playing to the galleries of plastic paddies with tales of anti-irish racism and feeding the gullability of imaginary armalite toting wannabe Rebels, whereas in fact Scots of Irish Catholic heritage have done enormously well for themselves over the past century. Not bad, in a country that is supposed to be bigotted and sectarian to its core., according to Neil and his ilk.

 

 

This is spot on.