Good piece Kev. I read the Times article. It is a desolate piece of writing and one contrived simply to make yet another attack on all things Rangers, and on this occasion, Scotland. As usual it is achieved by way by of the all too familiar use of snide innuendo. This journalist seeks to conjure images in the minds of readers of violent Rangers fans lying in wait for Mr Lennon. It is gravely insulting just as it was intended to be. The Times needs to seriously consider its judgement in allowing itself to be used in this way. Phil Gordon has assembled one fact ie Mr Lennon was advised by Celtic Security not to take a seat in the Directors box, and used the space afforded to him to infer that this is a Rangers problem. It is of course pure prejudice on his part. In short, he fails his newspaper and misleads its readers. If Phil Gordon had any other purpose than to sully our name, then he would have offered his readers another and more plausible alternative to Celtic's reasoning. That is, Celtic must have been acutely aware that by his own actions there was a very real chance that Neil Lennon would have heaped embarrassment upon his club. This is something totally airbrushed from all reporting on Neil Lennon and he is never properly held to account for his own behaviour. There is no way on earth that Rangers would have allowed Neil Lennon's safety to be compromised- like we need that. Rangers security and the Police, given all that has happened in the past, would have been very quick off the mark to make a swift and decisive decision regarding his safety should they have sensed a threat. It was Celtics reputation and not Neil Lennon's safety that was under threat and Celtic acted accordingly and let us carry the can.