Did Rangers lose their way when Donald Findlay left the club

[Ibroxblue 122]

Is there no end to your utter nonsense ?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest the Amo incident was "swept under the carpet" . It was a leading story in the news...press tv and radio.. for days - so dont give me any of that crap. But according to your assertion it has not been brought up recently - so how does that equate to it being swept under the carpet ?

Let me remind you seeing as you dont remember all the details - Amo made a racist comment - denied it initially - the media then for several days showed pictures - video re-runs of the incident - and eventually Amoruso did an about turn and apologised.

Do a quick google search on the Amo incident - and then do one on the Lennon one - and come back on here and tell me and the rest of these boards which one has been "swept under the carpet"

As for the evidence not being clear in the lip-reader case - dont make me laugh - do you really believe an expert witness would give an opinion just to please the Rangers support ? And undermine their expert reputation just to satisfy the allegations of a few Rangers supporters ? You really are losing your credibility here.

Whats funny is you claiming Spiers slated Lennon due to one incident - which was indefensible.. even for the tims - yet you seem to forget Spiers defending Lennon and O'Neil after the OF shame game. A defence which brought derision even from some of this peers in the press.

Lennon was pictured in handcuffs on the front of The Sun for example. The Daily Record labelled him one of the Celtic "Thugs and Thieves" on their front page, for another example (though it is conceivable that the libel damages he won for that have made the media wary of making more allegations against him unless the evidence is very clear, which of course it wasn't in the "lipreader" case).

Now there is an interesting comment. If we have 2 cases where the evidence appears not from sound - but from the actions of the mouth - tell me why the press were not frightened to put Amo's on the news and in the papers for several days yet....despite the testimony of the leading lip reading specialist in Scotland...they appeared to be reticent to treat Lennon's in the same manner ?

Over to you

Like I said, I don't remember all the details of the Amo case (I know you've given your version of it, but I'm afraid I can't view you as an objective observer) but he didn't exactly defuse any controversy by making his "Italian dialect" statement.

If the media are so keen to get us (or however you want to put it) why is Amo's racist behaviour never brought up, e.g. when he appears in the media?

Over to you.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Like I said, I don't remember all the details of the Amo case (I know you've given your version of it, but I'm afraid I can't view you as an objective observer) but he didn't exactly defuse any controversy by making his "Italian dialect" statement.

If the media are so keen to get us (or however you want to put it) why is Amo's racist behaviour never brought up, e.g. when he appears in the media?

Over to you.

Seems to me Ibroxblue you seem to remember sufficient about it if you are able to post details of Amo's initial defence...oh the mind is a funny thing eh ?

However I do....like Frankie previously...detect an element of deflection and selective response from you.

I asked a number of questions of you...which you have...to date declined to answer.

Instead you suggest that because the Amo incident is not brought u,p you suggest it demonstrates media balance ?

Is Ron Atkinson reminded daily of his racial comments ? Is that a constant focus for the media ?

Nope and you know why ? Because like Amoruso he has admitted his wrongdoing and apologised publicly for it. However that aside... at the time the comments were made there was intense media speculation in respect of both of them.

Was there the same media focus when Lennon's wrongdoing came to light ?

But thats one which you appear unwilling to answer.

[Ibroxblue 122]

Like I said, I don't remember all the details of the Amo case (I know you've given your version of it, but I'm afraid I can't view you as an objective observer) but he didn't exactly defuse any controversy by making his "Italian dialect" statement.

If the media are so keen to get us (or however you want to put it) why is Amo's racist behaviour never brought up, e.g. when he appears in the media?

Over to you.

Seems to me Ibroxblue you seem to remember sufficient about it if you are able to post details of Amo's initial defence...oh the mind is a funny thing eh ?

I remember that one point. There's nothing particularly "funny" about that.

However I do....like Frankie previously...detect an element of deflection and selective response from you.

I'm not sure "detect" is the right word, more a misunderstanding of what I was doing. It's not necessary to respond directly to every single, individual word of what someone says to cover the overall point.

Instead you suggest that because the Amo incident is not brought u,p you suggest it demonstrates media balance ?

I didn't actually say that. But maybe it is an example of that.

Is Ron Atkinson reminded daily of his racial comments ? Is that a constant focus for the media ?

Not daily. Though I suspect it is brought up more often than Amo's.

Was there the same media focus when Lennon's wrongdoing came to light ?

But thats one which you appear unwilling to answer.

Appoearances can be deceptive. I've said I don't remember precisely how the Amo thing went and pointed to an important difference between the two situations (Amo compounded his offence by lying about it, sadly).

I'll ask you again. If the media are so keen to get us (or however you want to put it) why is Amo's racist behaviour (plus lying) not brought up, e.g. when he appears in the media?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I'll ask you again.

Well done - you have got me laughing at the sheer gall of you - avoid answering questions and then demand answers from others.

You should not judge others however by your own standards - I have actually answered your question re Amo.

And of course a nice little bit of pedantic word play thrown in...

I'm not sure "detect" is the right word, more a misunderstanding of what I was doing. It's not necessary to respond directly to every single, individual word of what someone says to cover the overall point.

I didn't actually say that. But maybe it is an example of that.

Be careful there IB - swerve any more and you may hit yourself on the back.

Maybe one day you will learn to answer questions presented to you rather than avoid them.

Then again........

[Ibroxblue 122]

Sorry D'Artagnan I must have missed your answer to my question about why the media (if they're so anti-Rangers or whatever) don't call Amo a lying racist when he's interviewed (about such things as our trip to Livorno or the prospect of Gattuso coming back to Ibrox). I wonder whether, if it was an ex-Celtic player, folk with views like yours wouldn't be demanding to know why it was never brought up?

[rab wilson 3,246]

It may be coincidence , but I believe the tide went against us as a club when Donald Findlay left the club, the board became spineless and no-one stood for the club against the accusations from the media and the tims.

At least Donald you can hold your head high walk the street knowing you hold steadfast and intransigent against the wave of PC nonsense. You would have held people to account for the turning of the beating of hundreds of Rangers fans into some sort of Bigot fest for Rangers fans. With you we knew where we stood, alas no more.

Keep the Faith - well it is getting harder.

well said dummiesoot, he is one of our bigest losses, and all thats left behind is a board of cowards who will not defend our club or fans and would sell their grannys for a pound, they make me sick.

Well said mistral. No Surrender

[THEFISH 0]

It may be coincidence , but I believe the tide went against us as a club when Donald Findlay left the club, the board became spineless and no-one stood for the club against the accusations from the media and the tims.

At least Donald you can hold your head high walk the street knowing you hold steadfast and intransigent against the wave of PC nonsense. You would have held people to account for the turning of the beating of hundreds of Rangers fans into some sort of Bigot fest for Rangers fans. With you we knew where we stood, alas no more.

Keep the Faith - well it is getting harder.

well said dummiesoot, he is one of our bigest losses, and all thats left behind is a board of cowards who will not defend our club or fans and would sell their grannys for a pound, they make me sick.

Well said mistral. No Surrender

Absolutely no doubt about it....they are a disgrace to the days gone by and present days at RFC

Coz...................they are not real Rangers men :pipegreen:

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

Donald Findlay should never have been allowed to leave the Club point blank and anybody with any other thoughts are definitely not one of us !

[snoopyboymason 13]

Donald Findlay should never have been allowed to leave the Club point blank and anybody with any other thoughts are definitely not one of us !

agree it was after that capitulation to the media that they started taking more and more liberties unchallenged by the club

[THEFISH 0]

Murray didnt have the stomach or the bawz to back brother Findlay.....

NO SURRENDER DONALD WE ARE THE PEOPLE

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Sorry D'Artagnan I must have missed your answer to my question about why the media (if they're so anti-Rangers or whatever) don't call Amo a lying racist when he's interviewed (about such things as our trip to Livorno or the prospect of Gattuso coming back to Ibrox). I wonder whether, if it was an ex-Celtic player, folk with views like yours wouldn't be demanding to know why it was never brought up?

No I'm sorry that you continually to duck....dive and swerve the questions Frankie and I have posed to you regarding Lennon...and you now attempt to deflect away from it by asking absolutely ridiculous questions about Amo.

[Ibroxblue 122]

Sorry D'Artagnan I must have missed your answer to my question about why the media (if they're so anti-Rangers or whatever) don't call Amo a lying racist when he's interviewed (about such things as our trip to Livorno or the prospect of Gattuso coming back to Ibrox). I wonder whether, if it was an ex-Celtic player, folk with views like yours wouldn't be demanding to know why it was never brought up?

No I'm sorry that you continually to duck....dive and swerve the questions Frankie and I have posed to you regarding Lennon...and you now attempt to deflect away from it by asking absolutely ridiculous questions about Amo.

There's nothing ridiculous about them. It's you who's dodging.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Now there is an interesting comment. If we have 2 cases where the evidence appears not from sound - but from the actions of the mouth - tell me why the press were not frightened to put Amo's on the news and in the papers for several days yet....despite the testimony of the leading lip reading specialist in Scotland...they appeared to be reticent to treat Lennon's in the same manner ?

Did someone mention dodging ?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

Naw but there's somebody dodgy here and it's no D'A ? WTF ?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Actually the more I read that....

Are you now calling Amo a lying racist ?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Naw but there's somebody dodgy here and it's no D'A ? WTF ?

Its amazing BD...

He has more swerves than a drunk driver.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

Naw but there's somebody dodgy here and it's no D'A ? WTF ?

Its amazing BD...

He has more swerves than a drunk driver.

He sounds like our PR department ! The heid in the saun loyal ?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Naw but there's somebody dodgy here and it's no D'A ? WTF ?

Its amazing BD...

He has more swerves than a drunk driver.

He sounds like our PR department ! The heid in the saun loyal ?

Perhaps not so much in the sand BD.....

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,658]

Now I recognise why he talks a lot of s h - t !

[Ibroxblue 122]

Now there is an interesting comment. If we have 2 cases where the evidence appears not from sound - but from the actions of the mouth - tell me why the press were not frightened to put Amo's on the news and in the papers for several days yet....despite the testimony of the leading lip reading specialist in Scotland...they appeared to be reticent to treat Lennon's in the same manner ?

Did someone mention dodging ?

Yep. And you're still doing it. I replied to what you quoted. You're dodging the questions about why the media, if they're so anti-Rangers, don't bring up the Amo/Ikpeba situation. And how you would feel about it if the same was done about an ex-Celtic player.

[Ibroxblue 122]

Actually the more I read that....

Are you now calling Amo a lying racist ?

No. (Hint: read carefully.)

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I have....

You are suggesting that if the press had an anti-Rangers agenda they would continually bring up the Amoruso incident and label him a lying racist.

So...according to you...the fact the press dont bring up a falsehood.....means they dont have an anti-Rangers agenda.

You must be getting desperate now Ibroxblue...is your deflection shield worn out ?

But lets deal with this now and then perhaps you will give me a straight answer.

Why dont the press bring up the Amo situation...or for that matter the Atkinson one ?

Because both have publicly admitted their wrongdoing and apologised for it. There is no mystery - no conjecture - no unanswered questions- no denials. The matter is at end. Finished. No longer news worthy. And perhaps I will give the press some credit here - they dont seem to assume as you do - that because Amo made one racist comment he is necessarily a racist.

The same as the Findlay situation when Kelly defended him and stated he was not a bigot.

But you have yet to answer the question repeatedly put to you by both Frankie and myself.

You continue as Frankie says to prevaricate....or avoid...or deflect.

[Frankie 505]

Let's compare the Amoruso racism row with the Lennon bigotry row... As mentioned both were very similar incidents where a player was caught mouthing obscenities during a game.

Typing Amoruso + racist into Google brings up the following page right away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/556706.stm

Notice, how within the article, the BBC (a supposedly neutral organisation) do the following:

1. They ask the article readers for their comments;

2. They infer Amoruos is a liar;

3. Rangers are asked for the comments (where they and the player apologise);

4. Kick it Out were asked for their comments;

5. The SFA were asked for their comments;

6. UEFA were asked for their comments.

There are also several other pages from the Scotsman, Evening Times, Sporting Life and RTE. As such, I think we can say the subject was fully covered at the time. However, since Amoruso apologised at the time, coverage nowadays of what happened then is minimal and not really relevant. Especially when we don't have Amoruso giving front page biography extracts telling of how he suffered racism during his time in Scotland.

Let's compare that of the Lennon incident. Typing Lennon + bigot (or DOB) into Google results in only the YouTube video and a few fanzine debates. No BBC story and no newspaper coverage. No invitation of the SFA/UEFA or fans to comment. No questioning of the player and his club.

The evidence above is quite compelling and I'm still amazed at the Rangers fans who are quick to castigate their own while make every excuse possible for Celtic players guilty of even worse behaviour.

Now, can someone please explain that obvious and quite incredible reporting inconsistency given the similarities of the two issues?

[dummiesoot 16,009]

Let's compare the Amoruso racism row with the Lennon bigotry row... As mentioned both were very similar incidents where a player was caught mouthing obscenities during a game.

Typing Amoruso + racist into Google brings up the following page right away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/556706.stm

Notice, how within the article, the BBC (a supposedly neutral organisation) do the following:

1. They ask the article readers for their comments;

2. They infer Amoruos is a liar;

3. Rangers are asked for the comments (where they and the player apologise);

4. Kick it Out were asked for their comments;

5. The SFA were asked for their comments;

6. UEFA were asked for their comments.

There are also several other pages from the Scotsman, Evening Times, Sporting Life and RTE. As such, I think we can say the subject was fully covered at the time. However, since Amoruso apologised at the time, coverage nowadays of what happened then is minimal and not really relevant. Especially when we don't have Amoruso giving front page biography extracts telling of how he suffered racism during his time in Scotland.

Let's compare that of the Lennon incident. Typing Lennon + bigot (or DOB) into Google results in only the YouTube video and a few fanzine debates. No BBC story and no newspaper coverage. No invitation of the SFA/UEFA or fans to comment. No questioning of the player and his club.

The evidence above is quite compelling and I'm still amazed at the Rangers fans who are quick to castigate their own while make every excuse possible for Celtic players guilty of even worse behaviour.

Now, can someone please explain that obvious and quite incredible reporting inconsistency given the similarities of the two issues?

Frankie it can be summed up thus,

Amo - big bad racist that plays for Rangers

DF - Big bad bigot that works for rangers

Lemmon - Victim victim victim

[wronglypenalised 14]

Let's compare the Amoruso racism row with the Lennon bigotry row... As mentioned both were very similar incidents where a player was caught mouthing obscenities during a game.

Typing Amoruso + racist into Google brings up the following page right away:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/556706.stm

Notice, how within the article, the BBC (a supposedly neutral organisation) do the following:

1. They ask the article readers for their comments;

2. They infer Amoruos is a liar;

3. Rangers are asked for the comments (where they and the player apologise);

4. Kick it Out were asked for their comments;

5. The SFA were asked for their comments;

6. UEFA were asked for their comments.

There are also several other pages from the Scotsman, Evening Times, Sporting Life and RTE. As such, I think we can say the subject was fully covered at the time. However, since Amoruso apologised at the time, coverage nowadays of what happened then is minimal and not really relevant. Especially when we don't have Amoruso giving front page biography extracts telling of how he suffered racism during his time in Scotland.

Let's compare that of the Lennon incident. Typing Lennon + bigot (or DOB) into Google results in only the YouTube video and a few fanzine debates. No BBC story and no newspaper coverage. No invitation of the SFA/UEFA or fans to comment. No questioning of the player and his club.

The evidence above is quite compelling and I'm still amazed at the Rangers fans who are quick to castigate their own while make every excuse possible for Celtic players guilty of even worse behaviour.

Now, can someone please explain that obvious and quite incredible reporting inconsistency given the similarities of the two issues?

Frankie it can be summed up thus,

Amo - big bad racist that plays for Rangers

DF - Big bad bigot that works for rangers

Lemmon - Victim victim victim

you forgot an extra victim