SFA media man Darryl Broadfoot's response to (what is in the circumstances) a valid and sensible question re the anonymous figure who is responsible for ignoring Hooper and taking action against Naismith.
This type of attack is unprofessional and absolutely revolting.
Perhaps the journos who have spent much of the day (and the previous two) debating the severity of Naismith's offence might take a moment to postpone their first look at the Hooper incident so many are publicly stating they "haven't seen" and concentrate on this?