Ad Lib Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Explain how the 'arbitrary' nature of the Football Act differs in a significant manner from the 'arbitrary' nature of the already existing BOTP legislation please. Are you calling for BOTP to repealed as well; if not, why not? If you have a philosophical issue with arbitrary laws being used to govern behaviour in (predominantly) public spaces, then you might have a problem living within just about every society on the planet. In reality, both BOTP and the Football Act are largely governed to a high level of common sense: which is absolutely necessary to control public order without being an authoritarian shithole. There is no evidence that arresting some mouthbreathers chanting at a football match tips Scotland towards the latter, so your concern is disregarded. You don't know what you're talking about. "Conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community" Is clearly a much more exacting and narrow standard than that encompassed by the Criminalisation of Singing Act. Apart from anything else it requires genuine likelihood of serious disturbance. There have been successful prosecutions under the Act where there was no real threat of disturbance or public disorder at all. Christ, a Thistle fan got convicted for singing an anti-Sectarian song at Firhill when Celtic came to town. He posed absolutely zero threat to public order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) Inciting hatred is saying things like "kill all Jews" or "Infidels should die" etc Singing about Craig Gowans dying or the potato famine or Jason Cummings being a paedophile is in bad taste but shouldn't be illegal IMO. Are you serious? Someone shouts that in a pub, you'd be fine with it? Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Well that's just bollocks. If Rangers sang "muslim blood", their fans would be banned. I would ban them too. Just wouldn't imprison them. Hibs though? Lol. Minter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Are you serious? Someone shouts that in a pub, you'd be fine with it? Kick them out the pub. Do them for breach if return. Otherwise leave it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Everybody is tagging this to the OO and Rangers .... again ... yawn. The people to thank gettong this sorted, and it pains me to admit, is celt*c. Look here http://fansagainstcriminalisation.com/ and along with the guys from this movement that went to the parliament and told the SNP to GTF wae their stupid laws. Take my hat off to yees on this one. To the rest, it affects EVERYONE. Not just OF. Look at the reports around Scotland. The quicker we get rid of these SNP morons from our lives the better. It only affects people who want to sing bigoted songs. Its a good law that was badly needed, as ever the SNP are the first ones to ever attempt to actually try to make Scotland a better place and deal with our problems. As ever, the unionist parties are perfectly happy to damage Scottish society and roll back laws that are good for Scotland in order to damage the SNP. The constitution really needs resolving we are in an absurd position of having the main opposition parties working against the interests of our entire country, the NPS is the same, the unionist parties will be perfectly happy to endanger the lives of Scottish children just to hurt the SNP. Disgraceful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Kick them out the pub. Do them for breach if return. Otherwise leave it. That's racist bollocks. The Irish are white innit, so it is just lolz. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) I would ban them too. Just wouldn't imprison them. Hibs though? Lol. Minter. No-one would ban them. That is why there is a law. The SFA? LOL Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Are you serious? Someone shouts that in a pub, you'd be fine with it? That's the choice of the bartenders. A private business has the right to decide what it's customers can and can't do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Singapore 1942 anyone? My grandad was there, biggest retreat in British military history and complete surrender. He was also there at the reconquest of Singapore too, he got away when it fell like. And he personally unlocked the gates at Changi jail and was a Chindit too. Quite a guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 My grandad was there, biggest retreat in British military history and complete surrender. He was also there at the reconquest of Singapore too, he got away when it fell like. And he personally unlocked the gates at Changi jail and was a Chindit too. Quite a guy. Aye so he did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 The fact that there's broad agreement right across the political spectrum suggests quite strongly that there's a problem with the law, and a need to make changes. I'm not even slightly surprised to discover that quite a lot of people have immediately assumed that it's some kind of malicious, conspiratorial attack on the SNP. Erm that's cause thats what it is. Deluded in the extreme to think its actually cause the opposition parties are all concerned about it being a bad law, which its not. Its a chance to weaken the SNP is all, not surprised a Celtic fan wants it repealed though, strangely enough its always Old Firm fans that have a problem with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) That's the choice of the bartenders. A private business has the right to decide what it's customers can and can't do. No it doesn't. A police officer can arrest anyone for singing about the Irish potato famine in a pub at any time, under BOTP. BOTP can take place on both public and private property; thanks for playing anyway. But... but... unjust, arbitrary law!!!!1111!!! Edited May 15, 2016 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Seems legit. Just 'tell' the Police to enforce the BOTP Act at all football matches at all times? Impractical and even more arbitrary than the Act. Which elements of fan behaviour that fall under BOTP would be dealt with? How should a police officer exercise their own judgement on that matter? Explain how the 'arbitrary' nature of the Football Act differs in a significant manner from the 'arbitrary' nature of the already existing BOTP legislation please. Are you calling for BOTP to repealed as well; if not, why not? You're the one claiming that enforcing BOTP is impractical at football matches. How is that impractical, yet police are better equipped to interpret the even looser definitions in the Football Act? Ad lib has already outlined the differences between the laws. 2. The Scottish Government also isn't in a legitimate position to apply political pressure whatsoever upon the SFA. That is the sort of behaviour that sees footballing authorities being suspended by FIFA. I'm also curious about this point. Have Greece been suspended for suspending their league earlier this season due to crowd disorder? Have England been suspended for making standing illegal in the top 2 divisions? Have Scotland been suspended for making alcohol at football illegal? Of course the government could put pressure on the SFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2822313/Race-storm-pub-Ku-Klux-Klan-party.html What do you see there? Potential Lib Dem voters. It's PC gone mad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 You're the one claiming that enforcing BOTP is impractical at football matches. How is that impractical, yet police are better equipped to interpret the even looser definitions in the Football Act? Ad lib has already outlined the differences between the laws. Well, that's utter pish. The Police wanted the Act, take it up with them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Well, that's utter pish. The Police wanted the Act, take it up with them. I'm arguing VT's point. And the police want lots of things. Doesn't mean they should have them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Well, that's utter pish. The Police wanted the Act, take it up with them. Evidence if it is needed that police should not decide laws then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Evidence if it is needed that police should not decide laws then. The fact we got here: Old Firm can do what they want. That's the bottom line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 The fact we got here: Old Firm can do what they want. That's the bottom line. So, bearing in mind we all heard last season's cup semi-final between green and blue bigots, how has the new law changed anything? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Cort's Hamstring Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 yes they should. Wanting to interview suspects without access to a lawyer in Scotland. Wanting to hold terror suspects for 3 months without charge. The existence of South Yorkshire police. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.