In a succulent piece in The Scotsman, journalist Allan Patullo took more offence, it seems, on a Celtic fans comment on social media about a refereeing decision rather than the horrific abuse Kevin Clancy has suffered at the hands of Rangers fans.
The alleged post was a gripe about Clancy awarding Rangers a free kick against Matt O’Riley that led to the Tavernier free kick goal:
“It was time to get off the internet when one post from a Celtic fan took issue with Clancy’s award of a foul for Matt O’Riley’s lunge on Malik Tillman shortly before half-time.
“It led to a booking for the Celtic midfielder and a goal to Rangers, with James Tavernier hitting goal No. 99 for the Ibrox side from a free-kick anyone with eyes could see had been correctly given.”
Was the abuse that Clancy was receiving from Rangers fans not enough to switch off the internet?
And why did this journalist not come out and reference the fact that it was Rangers fans who exposed Clancy’s personal details online but found the balls to speak about a Celtic fan disagreeing with a refereeing decision?
Was it genuinely a valid and salient point about a refereeing decision that forced Patullo to switch of his browser?
If that’s the case, he best not go near Follow Follow. He damn might near have a heart attack!
- “He’s not good enough to be at Celtic.” – Mark Guidi’s unfair criticism of summer signing
- Celtic AND Rangers fans unite to defend Liel Abada from The Sun’s ludicrous journalism
- Why Rangers will lose “alarming” refereeing stat this Saturday and Celtic will benefit
- Report: Celtic double link with Japanese star and Colombian winger
- Celtic fans rip into Rangers Radio moonhowling rant on anti-Monarchy protests
