Consistent inconsistency

[D'Artagnan 173]

Apologies if this journey appears a tad confusing, I can assure you none of it is my doing. It starts with Rangers player Andy Halliday receiving a red card against Morton for a goal celebration which officials deemed had the potential to incite a riot. Further along the road we have a security guard gesturing a 5 - 1 sign whilst posing for a photograph with Hibs manager Neil's Lennon. A gesture the Edinburgh club described as "insulting" and which merited a complaint. Our journey ends at Ibrox with Neil Lennon aforesaid, gesticulating a GIRUY to the Rangers support during a match Police Scotland had expressed concern about. Despite all of the foregoing this incident was deemed neither insulting nor likely to incite a riot, apparently it could be categorised as "banter"

 

I have read and listened to several comments from bears in response to the Club1872 statement regarding Lennon's conduct. "Ill-advised" "Misjudged" as well as the suggestion it has deflected from other matters e.g. the very one-sided refereeing display. If any of you think Beaton's performance would have been subjected to forensic examination by the Scottish media you are clearly more optimistic than me.

 

For example. Keith Jackson's Monday column appeared to have been prepared based on the ongoing boycott of the Daily Record and the introduction of a camera to the Rangers press conference, both subjects which have attracted his ire. There is almost a suggestion of Rangers fans having temerity and audacity to choose to boycott a newspaper which has been shown to print lies about them. His own newspaper’s lies in respect of Rangers supporters is something Jackson's fails to mention in his column. Furthermore, as he sets out to compare our club to the North Korean regime, hinting that the presence of a camera to record proceedings is some kind of "sinister sub text" he neglects to mention its primary purpose is so that our manager can analyse his performance at press conferences. Those of us who had undergone even the briefest of media training will know such practice is commonplace.

 

The only sinister element at play here appears to be the very selective presentation of facts in a manner befitting a totalitarian despot regime.

 

There has also been the suggestion the club itself should have taken the lead on the response and highlighted the refereeing. I refrain from using the term “bad” or “abysmal” refereeing as it would suggest it was consistently bad across the board – it was anything but. But as someone who has been particularly critical of “dignified silence” from Rangers’ boards I find myself in a strange place. However, the issue of the refereeing performance is a matter for the club to pursue and they appear to be doing so courtesy of the appeal of Jack’s red card. Would it be appropriate to comment prior to the conclusion of the judicial proceedings which will determine the outcome of that appeal?

 

“Unlawful Tom” appeared to be concentrating on the “indignant” nature of Rangers fans regarding Beaton’s performance rather than offer any analysis of it. (As a side note, a few have contacted me regarding the initial response from the BBC regarding complaints. My suggestion would be to escalate if you are not satisfied with the response – if they refuse to do so I’d suggest addressing your concerns via Ofcom)

 

When Butcher/Woods/Roberts and McAvennie were deemed to have fallen foul of the law Sheriff Archibald McKay was unequivocal in his summation at the end of the trial.

 

“A large percentage of supporters are readily converted by breaches of the peace into two rival mobs. That they were not so transformed is no credit to you. You must have been aware of your wider responsibilities and you failed to discharge them”

 

There is a clear message within that summation of both the standards of behaviour and responsibility of those on the park. If you think Neil Lennon satisfied either on Saturday then your opinion is different to mine. A person does not require to be offended to recognise irresponsible, reckless and provocative behaviour.

 

Of course the easy option for Club1872 would have been to remain silent, to say nothing, to ignore all the foregoing. And in doing so they would have fulfilled the brief provided recently by others :-

 

“Know your place H** scum”

[Frankie 8,562]

I remain unconvinced over Club1872's statement but can certainly see why they made it.

 

Problem is well all known Lennon is seen as the victim so no matter what he does, no-one will persuade people otherwise. In this case I'm not so sure we needed the police involved but given the Fenlon precedent, Lennon should be looking at a 4 game ban at the very least.

[Darthter 542]

Small point of note: Halliday DIDN'T receive a red card for his gesture @ Morton. He in fact received a YELLOW, but since he had already been booked, it resulted in his sending off. A small, but important point!!!

[Davie P 4]

Small point of note: Halliday DIDN'T receive a red card for his gesture @ Morton. He in fact received a YELLOW, but since he had already been booked, it resulted in his sending off. A small, but important point!!!

 

Another point. From memory, Halliday gestured towards the Rangers fans, and not towards the Morton support. Big difference.

 

Personally I feel that the C1872 statement has taken away the focus on the refereeing and placed it on Lennon. I couldn't give a flying f**k about Popcorn teeth but I am concerned that if Beaton's 'performance' is not addressed, then it is open season on the team. We definitely need 'clarification' on his decisions.

[Darthter 542]

Another point. From memory, Halliday gestured towards the Rangers fans, and not towards the Morton support. Big difference.

 

Personally I feel that the C1872 statement has taken away the focus on the refereeing and placed it on Lennon. I couldn't give a flying f**k about Popcorn teeth but I am concerned that if Beaton's 'performance' is not addressed, then it is open season on the team. We definitely need 'clarification' on his decisions.

 

Halliday's was also single arm...more like punching the air.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I remain unconvinced over Club1872's statement but can certainly see why they made it.

 

Problem is well all known Lennon is seen as the victim so no matter what he does, no-one will persuade people otherwise. In this case I'm not so sure we needed the police involved but given the Fenlon precedent, Lennon should be looking at a 4 game ban at the very least.

 

It is difficult Frankie, particularly if you are being innudated with e-mails from members complaining, which I suspect was the case.

 

Of course, were we blessed with a more responsible, less sycophantic press we could probably have relied upon them to highlight both the unedifying and potentially provocative nature of his conduct. Alas, we are where we are.

 

I always find it amusing when aforesaid sycophants attempt to justify his behaviour as merely a tit for tat with Rangers supporters, when the facts of the matter as everyone knows, are that he is clearly capable of unacceptable behaviour without the involvement of our support. His considerable rap sheet both on and away from the park bears testimony to this.

[trublusince1982 243]

Open the press conferences to the public. Let the public ask real questions

[stewarty 2,025]

Open the press conferences to the public. Let the public ask real questions

 

No chance. Thats an open goal for the green and grey hooped bretheren.

[Gonzo79 15,293]

The only way to put Lennon in his place is on the football pitch. Hump Hibs and he won't be quite so boistrous. Personally, I'm not really impressted with Club1872's statement as it will achieve nothing and puts the Rangers support in victim mode.

 

I hope the board have contacted the SFA about Beaton's performance on Saturday.

[Gonzo79 15,293]

And another point - was the plucked chicken lookalike, Griffiths, taken to task for tying the yahoo scarf round our goalpost? Isn't that sort of thing inciting violence?