invergowrie arab Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Considering the amount of trouble associated with T in the Park,... Bing drinking, assaults, attempted murders, rapes etc... I do find it ridiculous the government would think its a good idea to pay a private company to make sure hey hold this event, especially given its attitude towards football fans and alcohol What attitude? The First Minister stated the case had to be made for the lifting of the ban and SNP MSPs have signed up to lifting the ban. Who is actually taking that work forward though? Nobody as its a complete non issue. Now that Jim "glue" Murphy and his working class hero act have departed the scene the whole issue has been shown up to be the baseless grandstanding that it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The SNP are against lifting the alcohol ban http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-government-against-lifting-football-booze-ban-1-3692313 Yet they think it's appropriate to give out cash for a festival ironically named after a alcoholic drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The SNP are against lifting the alcohol ban http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-government-against-lifting-football-booze-ban-1-3692313 Yet they think it's appropriate to give out cash for a festival ironically named after a alcoholic drink. Bit of a tenuous link there, Rico. They're against lifting the alcohol ban, not rabid teetotallers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 This assumes that they are inherently or presumptively entitled: 1. To exist 2. To hold their concert at a specific venue 3. To hold their concert more than once 4. To hold their concert repeatedly at the same venue Why should the state create any of these presumptions or compensate a private company on the basis of those presumptions not being held to? If DF Concerts want a permanent site, they can buy one and do the proper diligence as to its long-term suitability and take into account the possibility of the site subsequently becoming unuseable. Otherwise they can suck it up. Your arguments are against governments helping any private or charitable organisation, they could be equally used against funding the National Museum, Scottish Opera, the Scottish Royal Conservatoire, small business grants, government funded apprenticeships, university and college places. Why does the government give money to some things and not others? It is basically their perogative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Your arguments are against governments helping any private or charitable organisation, they could be equally used against funding the National Museum, Scottish Opera, the Scottish Royal Conservatoire, small business grants, government funded apprenticeships, university and college places. Why does the government give money to some things and not others? It is basically their perogative. No. That is not my argument. My argument is that there should be significant restraints on government subsidy of established for-profit enterprises that don't need government money to continue to function. Our National Museum, Scottish Opera and the RC are not and have never been independently commercially viable. T In the Park has never not been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Considering the amount of trouble associated with T in the Park,... Bing drinking, assaults, attempted murders, rapes etc... I do find it ridiculous the government would think its a good idea to pay a private company to make sure hey hold this event, especially given its attitude towards football fans and alcohol Bing drinking ! Is that what your average unemployed Celtic fan does in the former mining villages dotted around the central belt ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Bing drinking ! Is that what your average unemployed Celtic fan does in the former mining villages dotted around the central belt ? My Team: St.Mirren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 When football fans of opposite sides can sit next to each other without becoming the missing link then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. Saying that, not sure why anyone would want to, paying probably around a £5 for a pint that will most likely be in a plastic cup and not to mention warm. Probably poured from a can from a case of 24 or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 When football fans of opposite sides can sit next to each other without becoming the missing link then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. Yet a place where 30 arrests is considered a success is a haven of non missing links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Don't think I said anything about anywhere else being better or lacking missing links? But if you're talking about TitP that's actually an impressive low amount Saying that, to try it, as a Pilot, think we should allow drinking and no segregation at the next Old Firm game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Of course let's not forget the assaults, attempted murders and rapes, thefts. Pretty much your average year at TITP these days. Yeah, I can see why the Scottish Government would want to spend cash on this while be against someone having a beer sitting in their seat watching a game of football. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Don't think I said anything about anywhere else being better or lacking missing links? But if you're talking about TitP that's actually an impressive low amount Saying that, to try it, as a Pilot, think we should allow drinking and no segregation at the next Old Firm game. Why yes, because a fixture that involves atypically high crowds, levels of policing, levels of disorder, violence and disruption, and which accounts for no more than 0.5% of football matches in Scottish senior football in any given season is definitely a representative pilot on which to base the case for limited phasing-out of segregation or for limited phasing-in of the availability of alcohol on the concourse at Scottish Football matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The SNP are against lifting the alcohol ban http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-government-against-lifting-football-booze-ban-1-3692313 Yet they think it's appropriate to give out cash for a festival ironically named after a alcoholic drink. First of all, awarding a grant and changing legislation are two entirely different animals. Second, the SNP doesn't have a position it as far as i am aware. Indeed it was SNP MSPs who called for a debate initially. Your own link says that the Health Minister and First Minister would need to be persuaded to lift the ban. That seems a sensible way forward to me to reverse legislation on an evidence basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 First of all, awarding a grant and changing legislation are two entirely different animals. Second, the SNP doesn't have a position it as far as i am aware. Indeed it was SNP MSPs who called for a debate initially. Your own link says that the Health Minister and First Minister would need to be persuaded to lift the ban. That seems a sensible way forward to me to reverse legislation on an evidence basis. the ban on serving alcohol in football grounds to fans on match days would be a backwards step in the Scottish Government’s wider efforts to reduce alcohol consumption. Yet, TITP is ok as it brings in money Ms Robison said: “Scotland has a difficult relationship with alcohol and our position has been to reduce alcohol consumption. I just think this goes in completely the wrong direction . Yet TITP is ok as it brings in money Ms Robison signalled the SNP government would resist changing the law, despite growing pressure to permit alcohol at football grounds along similar lines to south of the Border, where fans can drink in stadium bars before kick-off and at half-time. The minister suggested that allowing fans to drink for longer by opening bars in stadiums could “potentially” increase alcohol-related domestic abuse incidents. Oh aye, she sounds like she could is ready to be convinced at some point. Maybe Scottish football could blackmail the government..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochas III Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Why yes, because a fixture that involves atypically high crowds, levels of policing, levels of disorder, violence and disruption, and which accounts for no more than 0.5% of football matches in Scottish senior football in any given season is definitely a representative pilot on which to base the case for limited phasing-out of segregation or for limited phasing-in of the availability of alcohol on the concourse at Scottish Football matches. Yes, for 90 minutes it's the highest crowd you can get. Still nowhere near the time spent or numbers of somewhere like TitP. Piloting it at some place like Falkirk, Motherwell, Patrick won't give you an idea if it will work. Maybe we should try the Edinburgh Derby. Or the Dundee or the Aberdeen/United match then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Well call me suprised that Rico has managed to turn a thread into the "I want to be able to drink at football" pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Yet, TITP is ok as it brings in money . Yet TITP is ok as it brings in money Oh aye, she sounds like she could is ready to be convinced at some point. Maybe Scottish football could blackmail the government..... You do realise that the Scottish Government give your club money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Yes, for 90 minutes it's the highest crowd you can get. Still nowhere near the time spent or numbers of somewhere like TitP. Piloting it at some place like Falkirk, Motherwell, Patrick won't give you an idea if it will work. Maybe we should try the Edinburgh Derby. Or the Dundee or the Aberdeen/United match then. Oh perhaps be sensible and keep the ban in place for games that are deemed "high risk" Why should a Queen's Park fan be denied a beer from his seat in 2015 because of the actions of Celtic fans 35 years ago? But the argument isn't really about it, it's about the Scottish Government blatant double standards. They bang on about Scotland poor relationship with alcoholic, want to bring in minimum pricing to help encourage people to drink less. You can't turn around one day and tell us we need to improve our relationship with alcohol, while the next use public money to encourage a festival sponsored by Tennent's which has a history of alcohol related incidents just because it brings in some cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Oh perhaps be sensible and keep the ban in place for games that are deemed "high risk" Why should a Queen's Park fan be denied a beer from his seat in 2015 because of the actions of Celtic fans 35 years ago? But the argument isn't really about it, it's about the Scottish Government blatant double standards. They bang on about Scotland poor relationship with alcoholic, want to bring in minimum pricing to help encourage people to drink less. You can't turn around one day and tell us we need to improve our relationship with alcohol, while the next use public money to encourage a festival sponsored by Tennent's which has a history of alcohol related incidents just because it brings in some cash wtf are you on about. Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Yes, for 90 minutes it's the highest crowd you can get. Still nowhere near the time spent or numbers of somewhere like TitP. Piloting it at some place like Falkirk, Motherwell, Patrick won't give you an idea if it will work. Maybe we should try the Edinburgh Derby. Or the Dundee or the Aberdeen/United match then. You're a bit slow, aren't you? Introducing the sale of alcohol during senior football matches in Scotland does not have to be an all or nothing affair. It is perfectly reasonable to envisage, for example, a trial which begins with the 2nd-4th tiers, before looking to expand it to low-attendance matches in the top tier, on advice from Police Scotland in each instance. Basing your conclusions on the most extreme example when it provides useless data for 95% of Scottish football matches is plain daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.