cstamomusa 3,811 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Without wanting to prejudice anything we should perhaps wait until all the evidence has been heard before we call for knighthoods for these 2 guys. I imagine I'm not alone in hearing a little bit about these two and suffice to say it wasn't all good. Lennon is a cunt, but still. Am I missing something, regardless of who started it did these two not beat him up and kick him in the head. Maybe they should have brought charges against him instead of pushing/punching him back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMMS 27 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 But see the issue isn't is Lennon lying, none of us know if he remembers anything or not, he seems to have been drunk and got a kicking so there is a chance he doesn't remember much, perhaps he remembers everything we'll never know. There seems to be little doubt Lennon was assaulted, some might argue he 'asked for it', that isn't a defence however. Unless the accused can prove that they were defending themselves then they are guilty of assault. No conspiracy, no bias, no cover they are guilty. Doesn't matter what Lennon said to them if they hit him they'll be found guilty. The issue is the religious prejudice angle, did they assault him because of his religion. Most of us probably agree it started because of his profile and his notoriety, but because of his religion; that might be harder to prove. Personally, from what I've heard and read, I hope they are found guilty of assault. I don't like 2 guys beating up one guy in any circumstances and all witnesses seem to have seen the head blows when he was on the ground and that turns my stomach. But, I've heard nothing that makes me think this happened because of the religion of those involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Without wanting to prejudice anything we should perhaps wait until all the evidence has been heard before we call for knighthoods for these 2 guys. I imagine I'm not alone in hearing a little bit about these two and suffice to say it wasn't all good. Lennon is a cunt, but still. Am I missing something, regardless of who started it did these two not beat him up and kick him in the head. Maybe they should have brought charges against him instead of pushing/punching him back Just because lennon was too pissed to finish what he started doesn't make him innocent or them guilty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueshorts 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I pretty sure the 2 bellends who attacked Lennon are guilty of a crime. Lets face facts, both sets of the old firm habe total wankers in their support. The cctv footage show 2 guys attacking Lennon and then beating him to the ground - this is clearly illegal regardless of what happened before hand. There is also the issue of wether Lennon himself was guilty of acting in a manner likely to attract trouble which knowing his record, I wouldn't be surprised if he did act in this manner. But lets not act like tims, if 2 guys jump a guy and kick the shit out of them, then have broke the law regardless of what happened before hand. Let's face facts, the law of averages means that all big clubs will have some criminals in their support. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tontospal 1,116 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 But see the issue isn't is Lennon lying, none of us know if he remembers anything or not, he seems to have been drunk and got a kicking so there is a chance he doesn't remember much, perhaps he remembers everything we'll never know. There seems to be little doubt Lennon was assaulted, some might argue he 'asked for it', that isn't a defence however. Unless the accused can prove that they were defending themselves then they are guilty of assault. No conspiracy, no bias, no cover they are guilty. Doesn't matter what Lennon said to them if they hit him they'll be found guilty. The issue is the religious prejudice angle, did they assault him because of his religion. Most of us probably agree it started because of his profile and his notoriety, but because of his religion; that might be harder to prove. Personally, from what I've heard and read, I hope they are found guilty of assault. I don't like 2 guys beating up one guy in any circumstances and all witnesses seem to have seen the head blows when he was on the ground and that turns my stomach. But, I've heard nothing that makes me think this happened because of the religion of those involved. Spot on. If only one of them had been in a fight with Lennon then fair enough, these things happen especially when drink and old firm games are involved, but there is no excuse whatsoever for 2 men beating 1 so savagely as to knock him unconscious. I grudgingly admired Lennon as a player because he was very effective for celtc but as much as I hate Lennon the person with a passion what happened to him was out of order, whether he started it or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Two men accused of attacking Neil Lennon have told a court that he should have been charged over the incident. David Whitelaw, 47, and Jeffrey Carrigan, 43, claimed the Celtic coach "lost the plot" and had been "foaming at the mouth". Earlier, Glasgow Sheriff Court was told that Mr Lennon had made a one-fingered gesture to both men in response to a comment about a football result. Both accused deny committing assault on 1 September due to religious prejudice. The case revolves around events in Glasgow's Ashton Lane last September. Mr Whitelaw told the court: "If I didn't punch the person (Mr Lennon), Mr Carrigan would have ended up in hospital. "This guy was going right ahead, he had lost the plot. The way I saw it, Mr Lennon should've been charged." Mr Whitelaw, who is claiming self defence, said Mr Lennon pushed Mr Carrigan, grabbed him by the throat and swung a punch at him before he stepped in and punched the former player to the ground. He added: "He hit the deck and Mr Carrigan kicked him and I said 'leave it out' and the two of us walked away." Mr Whitelaw told the court that "none of this would have happened" if Mr Lennon "had kept his head". "Mr Carrigan was the victim and he was in shock afterwards. He was in shock because of what Neil Lennon had done to him," he said. "You don't expect that from a professional football player." Procurator fiscal depute Mark Allan asked Mr Whitelaw if five other witnesses who claimed that he had kicked Mr Lennon as he lay on the ground were wrong and he replied "yes". 'Victim claim' The accused also denied that he had acted in a cowardly fashion. His co-accused Mr Carrigan, later also claimed that he had been the victim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Lennon jurors resume deliberations The jury in the trial of two Rangers fans accused of assaulting former Celtic captain Neil Lennon will resume its deliberations. The eight women and seven men jury failed to reach a verdict after an hour and a half at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Thursday. Jeffrey Carrigan, 43, and David Whitelaw, 47, of Knightswood, Glasgow, deny assaulting Lennon aggravated by religious prejudice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Will they be permitted to reach a verdict today as I thought jury's had to wait until Monday to avoid rushing of deliberations? Shouldn't be an issue with having last night and today to come to a decision but I'm surprised they were allowed to go home given how easy it is to access non-neutral information on the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm heading down Ashton Lane way on Saturday. I wonder if I'll bump into him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Who was defending him..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. He's a very remarkable human being Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 TWO men were today found guilty of attacking Celtic legend Neil Lennon during a street brawl in the city's West End. Jeffrey Carrigan, 43, and David Whitelaw, 47, of Knightswood, Glasgow, were today found guilty of the assault by a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court. Both had denied assaulting Lennon on September 1 last year. The pair claimed it was coach Lennon who started the fight. advertisementWhitelaw, whose address was given as Barlinnie prison, and Carrigan, of Shafton Road, Knightswood, were on trial charged with assaulting Lennon to his severe injury at Ashton Lane, Glasgow, on September 1, last year, hours after an Old Firm game which Rangers won 4-2. Earlier, the court was told Mr Lennon gave the two men the finger after they mentioned the Old Firm score to him. Bar worker Liam Cameron, 24, said the duo walked past the Celtic star and "said something along the lines of Good score today'." The barman told the court words were exchanged and Mr Lennon was punched to the ground and kicked. Lennon said the only thing he could remember was waking up in the street. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. He's a very remarkable human being I agree. Remarkably ugly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDIGNITY 33,682 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 lennon must be pissin himself laughin, he's got what amounts to diplomatic immunity. They will not touch this piece of excrement, it's amazing what you can get out of life when you bomb yourself to the ballot box. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritishBear 34 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Nobody was defending him. However two men kicking anyone when down on the ground is disgusting and wrong and I am glad a few of us agree on that. Lennon is what he is but regardless of that right is right and wrong is wrong. If we abandon our morals and our decency then we'll be like the apologists for murderers in the east end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Nobody was defending him. However two men kicking anyone when down on the ground is disgusting and wrong and I am glad a few of us agree on that. Lennon is what he is but regardless of that right is right and wrong is wrong. The guys have been found guilty of kicking someone in the head who was lying unconscious, there is no defending or justifying that even though Lennon is a scumbag. He is far from innocent in all of this though and the initial reporting of this attack was an utter disgrace Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Nobody was defending him. However two men kicking anyone when down on the ground is disgusting and wrong and I am glad a few of us agree on that. Lennon is what he is but regardless of that right is right and wrong is wrong. The guys have been found guilty of kicking someone in the head who was lying unconscious, there is no defending or justifying that even though Lennon is a scumbag. He is far from innocent in all of this though and the initial reporting of this attack was an utter disgrace a good lawyer would have got the guys off with this case, i would not be surprised if the people who gave evidence for him were not even at the scene of the crime. also why did he not want to charge the guys then changed his mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gennaro 0 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Gulity of assault but not the religious aggravation part by majority verdict. BBC Report here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighlandBear 1 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I pretty sure the 2 bellends who attacked Lennon are guilty of a crime. Lets face facts, both sets of the old firm habe total wankers in their support. The cctv footage show 2 guys attacking Lennon and then beating him to the ground - this is clearly illegal regardless of what happened before hand. There is also the issue of wether Lennon himself was guilty of acting in a manner likely to attract trouble which knowing his record, I wouldn't be surprised if he did act in this manner. But lets not act like tims, if 2 guys jump a guy and kick the shit out of them, then have broke the law regardless of what happened before hand. Let's face facts, the law of averages means that all big clubs will have some criminals in their support. Says it all for me, wanker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Nobody was defending him. However two men kicking anyone when down on the ground is disgusting and wrong and I am glad a few of us agree on that. Lennon is what he is but regardless of that right is right and wrong is wrong. The guys have been found guilty of kicking someone in the head who was lying unconscious, there is no defending or justifying that even though Lennon is a scumbag. He is far from innocent in all of this though and the initial reporting of this attack was an utter disgrace a good lawyer would have got the guys off with this case, i would not be surprised if the people who gave evidence for him were not even at the scene of the crime. also why did he not want to charge the guys then changed his mind. Lennon picked a fight with the wrong guys, especially now the guys previous is known...but it doesn't excuse kicking someone in the head when they are on the ground.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritishBear 34 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 cant believe some members defending that scumbag lennon. Nobody was defending him. However two men kicking anyone when down on the ground is disgusting and wrong and I am glad a few of us agree on that. Lennon is what he is but regardless of that right is right and wrong is wrong. The guys have been found guilty of kicking someone in the head who was lying unconscious, there is no defending or justifying that even though Lennon is a scumbag. He is far from innocent in all of this though and the initial reporting of this attack was an utter disgrace a good lawyer would have got the guys off with this case, i would not be surprised if the people who gave evidence for him were not even at the scene of the crime. also why did he not want to charge the guys then changed his mind. What was it, 5 witnesses who seen him being kicked whilst he lay on the ground, not a chance in hell they would ever have been found not guilty, it's indefensible and rightly so regardless of who was the victim. I have no doubts that Lennon started the aggression and used violence first, if they had knocked him to the ground and left it like that, they would probably have been found not guilty, but both of them kicking him in the head has convicted them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 funny how the press had them guilty of a sectarian charge, i would sue the papers. also some of the jury must have thought that lennon was to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 funny how the press had them guilty of a sectarian charge, i would sue the papers. also some of the jury must have thought that lennon was to blame. As i said , the inital reporting of this incident was a disgrace....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minstral 5,375 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 i used to think that there was no excuse for kicking a person in the head when they were down until a mr hartson done it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts