Pat Nevin smeared the Celtic fans. Now he wants to hide from the questions.

A s I said yesterday, I do not expect Celtic fans to get any apology or restitution from the media, or from any corner of the Scottish football landscape, over the false allegations made against our supporters after the pitch invasion against Hearts.

But there are certain individuals who have handled this particularly badly, and Pat Nevin is one of them. Nevin has reportedly deleted his Twitter feed.

Doubtless, if he is ever asked about that, his defenders will say he did it because of abuse. Maybe that is true. Maybe it isn’t.

I do not know his motive, and I am not going to pretend I do. But the result is the same. He has avoided answering the obvious question; does he intend to explain, correct or apologise for what he said about Celtic fans and Lawrence Shankland?

Because this was not some vague comment. It was not a general observation about disorder. It was not a throwaway line about the emotional scenes on the pitch.

Nevin made a specific allegation.

He said: “Some Celtic fans have attacked Lawrence Shankland … two or three have punched him.” Those were his words.

That is an extremely serious claim. If Nevin saw what he says he saw, then he is not just a pundit with an opinion. He is a material witness to alleged criminality.

In that case, Hearts should be getting in touch with him immediately, because he appears to be the witness they do not currently have.

No footage has emerged showing Celtic fans punching Shankland. No Hearts player has made a formal complaint to Police Scotland. Hearts have not produced evidence supporting the claim. The club has not lodged a complaint on behalf of any player.

So where did Nevin see this? When did he see it? From what angle? And why has nobody else seen it? These are not unfair questions.

They are the only questions that matter.

Because if he saw two or three Celtic supporters punch Shankland, then that is not a minor detail. That is not something which could easily vanish in the chaos. That is a serious criminal allegation, and it should have been pursued properly from the moment it was made.

If, on the other hand, he did not see what he claimed to see, then he should say so. That is not difficult. It is easy when you get something wrong to say, “I did not have a clear view. I thought I saw something which, on reflection, I did not see. I apologise for misleading people.” That would have ended it.

No need to delete anything. No need to vanish from the conversation. No need to look like someone running away from accountability.

But that is not what happened. Instead, we are left with a serious allegation, no public evidence to support it, and no explanation from the person who made it.

That is unacceptable.

Nevin has had plenty of time to revisit the footage. He will have seen the clips. He will have heard Martin O’Neill challenge Tony Bloom to produce evidence of these alleged assaults. He will have known, long before now, that his claim required either proof or correction.

Then came the BBC report that Police Scotland had received no complaint from Hearts in relation to alleged assaults on their players.

That changed the landscape.

As long as there was still some vague belief that Hearts were working away behind the scenes with Police Scotland, that arrests might be coming, or that unseen evidence was about to surface, some people could keep the allegation alive a little longer.

But once it emerged that no formal complaint had been made, the position became very different. There is no credible public basis for the claim any longer.

That vindicates Martin O’Neill. It vindicates the Celtic fans who studied the footage and found nothing. It vindicates every supporter who said from day one that these allegations were being thrown around far too freely.

It also leaves a lot of people in the media with explaining to do.

Some plainly rushed to judgement. Some repeated the claims of others without doing their own work. That is bad enough when the subject is football. It is far worse when the subject is alleged assaults by supporters.

Others allowed personal bitterness and grievance to cloud their judgement. That too is unacceptable. Some people plainly exploited these allegations and weaponised them in the way they thought would do most damage to the Celtic support.

I do not know what motivated Nevin.

I do not want to believe he has some wider problem with the Celtic support, although he has said some pretty unkind things about our fans over the years.

But this is above and beyond that Whatever caused him to say what he said, he now has a responsibility to deal with it. He made a serious claim on air. If he saw what he claimed to see, he should explain it. If he did not, he should apologise.

What he cannot do is vanish from the conversation and hope the whole thing disappears.

When David Tanner made claims about what he said he witnessed at Ibrox, namely Celtic fans attacking Ibrox fans in the stands, he was called out immediately. He never properly retracted it, but he at least did not delete his Twitter feed and hide under the bed.

Tanner is shameless. Maybe Nevin feels a stab of shame. Maybe he simply does not want to answer difficult questions.

Either way, both men said things about Celtic supporters which were unsupported by the available evidence, and both helped push narratives that painted our fans in the worst possible light. For people in journalism, whether broadcast or print, that used to matter.

Every profession has people who make mistakes. Mistakes happen. But making a serious claim without evidence, then failing to correct it when the evidence does not appear, is something else.

What price standards today? What price accountability?

People like Nevin, Tanner and others who amplified these claims should not be allowed to just shrug and move on. Because Celtic fans will remember.

Nevin can avoid social media if he wants. That is his choice. But he cannot avoid the question forever. Everywhere he goes, where he meets Celtic fans, he is going to be asked to explain those remarks.

What did he see? Where did he see it? Why has nobody else seen it? Why has there been no complaint? Why has he not corrected the record?

That burden is his now. He put it there himself.

Choose The CelticBlog as a ‘Preferred Source’ on Google News for quick access to the news you value.