Did Rangers lose their way when Donald Findlay left the club

[Ibroxblue 122]

I have answered the questions put to me.

Let's deal with your latest meanderings.

"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."

Continually? No. You are trying to distort what I have said.

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

I never said that either - another distortion.

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

I didn't ask you about Atkinson (and his racist remark is brought up). So you've distorted my question by bringing him into it.

You're suggesting if someone admits something and apologises for it, the media never mention it again. I don't think so. It hasn't worked for Atkinson. And why would it stop an anti-Rangers media? "Yeah we really, really hate Rangers but big Amo said sorry so we won't mention that one". Yeah right.

Contrary to your assertions - you have not answered the question posed to you continually by Frankie and myself.

Let me re-iterate it for you.

Why there was not the same media intensity surrounding the Lennon outburst for sectarian behaviour - than there was for DF or Amo. ?

Answered several times. See my previous post for example.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

6. So the Rangers-hating media don't mention it because the Rangers player apologised? Doesn't sound at all convincing to me.

What are you saying here Ibroxblue......that the fact that the media dont refer to Amo as a lying racist....they are in some way doing us a favour...or being impartial ?

They dont bring it up because they understand it was one stupid outburst - for which he has apologised - they realise that one isolated incident does not make a person a racist.

However the coverage from the media for 2 incidents almost identical was totally imbalanced - and I dont accept your explanations to account for such imbalance.

[Ibroxblue 122]

6. So the Rangers-hating media don't mention it because the Rangers player apologised? Doesn't sound at all convincing to me.

What are you saying here Ibroxblue......that the fact that the media dont refer to Amo as a lying racist....they are in some way doing us a favour...or being impartial ?

What I am saying is that not bringing up Amo's (let's be honest) extremely bad behaviour hardly fits with the idea that the media are out to get us (or however you want to put it). They have had numerous chances to put the boot in about it - but they haven't.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I do not believe the explanations you have given anywhere near justify the lack of press parity in response to these 2 almost identical incidents.

Furthermore leaving aside for one moment the mouthed actions of both players - we have Lennon further disgracing himself by spitting on a Rangers scarf - I would suggest to deliberately incite Rangers fans.

His whole display of (lets be honest) shameful behaviour throughout the match culminating in his sectarian outburst at the Rangers dug out warranted at least parity of coverage by the media. Dont you agree ?

[bauba30 1]

6. So the Rangers-hating media don't mention it because the Rangers player apologised? Doesn't sound at all convincing to me.

What are you saying here Ibroxblue......that the fact that the media dont refer to Amo as a lying racist....they are in some way doing us a favour...or being impartial ?

They dont bring it up because they understand it was one stupid outburst - for which he has apologised - they realise that one isolated incident does not make a person a racist.

However the coverage from the media for 2 incidents almost identical was totally imbalanced - and I dont accept your explanations to account for such imbalance.

And he doesnt accept yours

And neither do I

Can we let it go at that?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

6. So the Rangers-hating media don't mention it because the Rangers player apologised? Doesn't sound at all convincing to me.

What are you saying here Ibroxblue......that the fact that the media dont refer to Amo as a lying racist....they are in some way doing us a favour...or being impartial ?

What I am saying is that not bringing up Amo's (let's be honest) extremely bad behaviour hardly fits with the idea that the media are out to get us (or however you want to put it). They have had numerous chances to put the boot in about it - but they haven't.

What extemely bad behaviour exactly are you talking about ? The only bad behaviour committed by Amo was admittin he drank Bailly's ! And like Donald Findlay who's thread this is about by the way ? Amo got his fair share of undeserved phress attention. So until we bring back DF and bring in more like him we are gonna be under constant mhedia attack ! Wartime Chairman needed in jigtime and Donald ticks all the boxes !

[Frankie 505]

IB:

1. Sorry, you are doing everything in your power to try and dismiss the incidents with Lennon. I find that incredible because it is given the clarity of what he did when compared with very similar incidents involving our staff.

2. It was in one newspaper that I recall. With no comment from anyone - not the player; not his club; not the SFA; not NbM and not UEFA - because the coverage was so minimal. Spiers didn't mention it until 2 years later. We've been through this already though and I was comparing the BBC coverage specifically in my last posts. I also used Google to explore this inconsistency to good effect. Which you've ignored - again.

3. Who says racism is worse than sectarianism - only you that I can see - I've certainly never seen the problems quantified qualitatively in any research? Certainly, we hear often enough about how Lennon suffered from it though. That's what makes his behaviour all the more relevant - you do agree with that simple point yeah?

4. Did I say there wasn't an international aspect? I just suggested there was more than one reason for it. The Old Firm game is broadcast to just as many international fans (if not more) than a Rangers UEFA Cup match.

5. Amoruso admitted his mistake and apologised. That's good enough for me and it was good enough for Ipkeba. Not for you though since you seem perturbed that the media still don't make an issue of it. Did Lennon or Celtic apologise? No, they were never for their opinion were they? Why is that do you think? It is a valid question surely? Why won't you answer it?

6. What's unclear about the clip then? Lennon clearly calls the Rangers bench (and fans) DOBs. Just as Amoruso clearly used racist terms. You do admit Lennon said this (as does anyone I have ever discussed the incident with - including Celtic fans and god forbid Graham Spiers). Only you finds it unclear. Bizarre!

7. No, you didn't mention an opposing player but you wondered who had made the charge. You also didn't mention the attention of the claim but the credibility of the witnesses. Not more deflection surely?

8. Are you reading my posts at all? That's twice you have missed the point I made. You are obviously doing so deliberately. But, just in case here is my point again. Amo apologised - the recipient IIRC accepted the apology. In addition, the matter isn't worthy of debate now because it's irrelevant to any subject covered by Amoruso as he does not appear on front pages claiming to be a victim of racism. Meanwhile, Lennon does appear every other week bumping his gums about being the victim of sectarianism (that common crime which isn't that bad now it suits you). That's strange and that's hypocritical given his own obvious bigotry.

9. However, obviously, we're not that concerned about the lack of coverage given to Lennon's indiscretions now. I just want to know why it was not covered at the time. As such, because the Amo case was covered(very fully as I showed), it has no bearing on the Lennon issue.

Now are you going to continue to prevaricate about the subject? Or can you answer the questions I've continually asked you in this thread?

The fact is Neil Lennon was guilty of a clear example of sectarian behaviour. Such behaviour is against the law in Scotland and the subject is extremely high profile. Yet, for some reason the media failed to cover it in the same way as the shameful Amoruso racism issue.

Why is that?

[Frankie 505]

As an interesting addendum to the above, today we have a negative Kris Boyd story in today's Sun newspaper. In it, they report on how Boyd has had a small bump in his new car - shortly after being given his licence back for drink driving. Obviously the story itself is pointless but the drink driving charge arguably has relevance because of the initial subject.

Now, like I say above, if Lorenzo Amoruso was to be on the front page of a Scottish newspaper complaining about racism towards Scots of Italian descent, then arguably his insult of 1999 would have to be discussed as it would then be extremely relevant to his claims.

The Lennon situation is of course different but similar if you'll excuse the paradox. The DOB issue is never mentioned nowadays because it was never covered properly the first time. So, despite the hypocrite complaining about bigotry every other week we'll never hear about his double-standards because his behaviour of 2004 has never been fully explored in same way the Amoruso (or Findlay) examples were...

As such, the comparison of the Amoruso and Lennon incidents (while similar in content) is fundamentally flawed because of the inconsistency of the reporting at the time.

[Ibroxblue 122]

IB:

1. Sorry, you are doing everything in your power to try and dismiss the incidents with Lennon. I find that incredible because it is given the clarity of what he did when compared with very similar incidents involving our staff.

2. It was in one newspaper that I recall. With no comment from anyone - not the player; not his club; not the SFA; not NbM and not UEFA - because the coverage was so minimal. Spiers didn't mention it until 2 years later. We've been through this already though and I was comparing the BBC coverage specifically in my last posts. I also used Google to explore this inconsistency to good effect. Which you've ignored - again.

3. Who says racism is worse than sectarianism - only you that I can see - I've certainly never seen the problems quantified qualitatively in any research? Certainly, we hear often enough about how Lennon suffered from it though. That's what makes his behaviour all the more relevant - you do agree with that simple point yeah?

4. Did I say there wasn't an international aspect? I just suggested there was more than one reason for it. The Old Firm game is broadcast to just as many international fans (if not more) than a Rangers UEFA Cup match.

5. Amoruso admitted his mistake and apologised. That's good enough for me and it was good enough for Ipkeba. Not for you though since you seem perturbed that the media still don't make an issue of it. Did Lennon or Celtic apologise? No, they were never for their opinion were they? Why is that do you think? It is a valid question surely? Why won't you answer it?

6. What's unclear about the clip then? Lennon clearly calls the Rangers bench (and fans) DOBs. Just as Amoruso clearly used racist terms. You do admit Lennon said this (as does anyone I have ever discussed the incident with - including Celtic fans and god forbid Graham Spiers). Only you finds it unclear. Bizarre!

7. No, you didn't mention an opposing player but you wondered who had made the charge. You also didn't mention the attention of the claim but the credibility of the witnesses. Not more deflection surely?

8. Are you reading my posts at all? That's twice you have missed the point I made. You are obviously doing so deliberately. But, just in case here is my point again. Amo apologised - the recipient IIRC accepted the apology. In addition, the matter isn't worthy of debate now because it's irrelevant to any subject covered by Amoruso as he does not appear on front pages claiming to be a victim of racism. Meanwhile, Lennon does appear every other week bumping his gums about being the victim of sectarianism (that common crime which isn't that bad now it suits you). That's strange and that's hypocritical given his own obvious bigotry.

9. However, obviously, we're not that concerned about the lack of coverage given to Lennon's indiscretions now. I just want to know why it was not covered at the time. As such, because the Amo case was covered(very fully as I showed), it has no bearing on the Lennon issue.

Now are you going to continue to prevaricate about the subject? Or can you answer the questions I've continually asked you in this thread?

The fact is Neil Lennon was guilty of a clear example of sectarian behaviour. Such behaviour is against the law in Scotland and the subject is extremely high profile. Yet, for some reason the media failed to cover it in the same way as the shameful Amoruso racism issue.

Why is that?

I've answered time and time again. You not liking my answers is not the same thing as me not answering.

I'll summarise the main points for one last time (there's more detail above, of course).

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear. I don't like Lennon, but that doesn't affect my judgement.

It was covered in the Daily Express and Daily Star. Spiers also mentioned it on radio, on TV and in the Herald.

I don't accept that, if the media hated Rangers, Amo apologising would stop them mentioning his bad behaviour. The media can't be all that desperate to get us if they continually pass over stuff like that.

You disagree, I accept that. I suggest we agree to disagree like civilised people. I'm not going over the same ground time and time again.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

[Frankie 505]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

Don't waste your time. The guy asks for respect and civility but refuses to answer the points to him despite what he says.

His prevarication is laughable and not worthy of further challenge.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

Don't waste your time. The guy asks for respect and civility but refuses to answer the points to him despite what he says.

His prevarication is laughable and not worthy of further challenge.

I think you are right Frankie - why bother....Manticore has suggested the same.

No answers...false allegations which they are unable to substantiate - aint worth it.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

Don't waste your time. The guy asks for respect and civility but refuses to answer the points to him despite what he says.

His prevarication is laughable and not worthy of further challenge.

I think you are right Frankie - why bother....Manticore has suggested the same.

No answers...false allegations which they are unable to substantiate - aint worth it.

Exactly, we have reached a point where they are saying 'well that's your opinion, this is mine'.

The flaw in that in that argument is that opinions based on facts are more valid.......

[bauba30 1]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

Don't waste your time. The guy asks for respect and civility but refuses to answer the points to him despite what he says.

His prevarication is laughable and not worthy of further challenge.

That has been answered by the guy a couple of times on this thread - why do you continually bom bard this fellow bear with questions he has already given his opinion on? You thiknk if you continually put him on the defensive he will change his mind?

[bauba30 1]

I don't accept the Lennon incident was clear

Do you think the Amo incident was clear ?

Don't waste your time. The guy asks for respect and civility but refuses to answer the points to him despite what he says.

His prevarication is laughable and not worthy of further challenge.

I think you are right Frankie - why bother....Manticore has suggested the same.

No answers...false allegations which they are unable to substantiate - aint worth it.

Hilarious

The only people making accusations are you guys, and you accuse IB of doing the same - and you accuse others of deflection? Basically once again, someone gives their opinion, is ok to agree to disagree with you, after answering all questions multiple times. Yet you are unable to accept this difference of opinion, so you make disparaging personal remarks about said fellow bear

Would be funny if it was just the once, but it is every single time and quite frankly, is becoming tiresome

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Never assume that the man without eyes.... cannot speak

Nor that the man without ears.....cannot hear

And never assume that the man without eyes.....cannot see.

Straight through you.

[bauba30 1]

Never assume that the man without eyes.... cannot speak

Nor that the man without ears.....cannot hear

And never assume that the man without eyes.....cannot see.

Straight through you.

Deflect, deflect.....

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Never assume that the man without eyes.... cannot speak

Nor that the man without ears.....cannot hear

And never assume that the man without eyes.....cannot see.

Straight through you.

Deflect, deflect.....

There is absolutely no need for us to deflect - this thread has proved to be very revealing - the preavarication...deflection...failure to answer straight questions...your attempts to discredit me.. not by joining in the debate but making comments of a personal nature, designed, it would appear, merely to discredit me - and which when challenged you were unable to substantiate - was not missed by many, and on the advice of others - you are no longer to be given breathing space. It has been noticed a constant theme with you is to side with anyone who has anything negative to say about this club or its support.

It would appear for many your thin veil of "devils advocate" has been lifted.... to reveal a malicious calculating liar who will stop at nothing.

[bauba30 1]

Never assume that the man without eyes.... cannot speak

Nor that the man without ears.....cannot hear

And never assume that the man without eyes.....cannot see.

Straight through you.

Deflect, deflect.....

There is absolutely no need for us to deflect - this thread has proved to be very revealing - the preavarication...deflection...failure to answer straight questions...your attempts to discredit me.. not by joining in the debate but making comments of a personal nature, designed, it would appear, merely to discredit me - and which when challenged you were unable to substantiate - was not missed by many, and on the advice of others - you are no longer to be given breathing space. It has been noticed a constant theme with you is to side with anyone who has anything negative to say about this club or its support.

It would appear for many your thin veil of "devils advocate" has been lifted.... to reveal a malicious calculating liar who will stop at nothing.

Just playing your game DA

Ok, name me one thing that I have presented as a fact in this threat that as you say, I haven't been able to substantiate

And by that, I do not mean anything where I am merely stating an opinion

The floor is yours