itzdrk Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 It is an obscene act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Breach of the peace? Threatening behaviour? I see he was done with "offensive gesticulating" presumably he made a gesture as if he was shaking coffee beans at the keeper? Folk are happy for that to be behaviour that is criminalised?? If it stops people doing the actions to Agadoo then I am all for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Breach of the peace? Threatening behaviour? I see he was done with "offensive gesticulating" presumably he made a gesture as if he was shaking coffee beans at the keeper? Folk are happy for that to be behaviour that is criminalised?? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) Breach of the peace? Threatening behaviour? I see he was done with "offensive gesticulating" presumably he made a gesture as if he was shaking coffee beans at the keeper? Folk are happy for that to be behaviour that is criminalised?? You've missed my sarcasm. To pick out one person out of a crowd for "gesticulating" is absolutely obscene. Fights on the park, assaults on players, 20,000 singing about ****** b*****ds, criminal damage... but we've got a guy flicking the vicky's at the Rangers goalkeeper. One guy out of at least a few thousand doing the very same thing on the pitch. Where's the justice in that? Edited May 25, 2016 by Paco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 This Binnie chap could have been done for any of: Assault Threatening behaviour under s38 of the Criminal Justice Act Breach of the Peace Incitement of breach of the peace Police Scotland are fucking at it. That choice of charge was straight up political. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 That man is scum. If he dropped dead tomorrow i would throw a party. Shut up you attention seeking twat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) You've missed my sarcasm. To pick out one person out of a crowd for "gesticulating" is absolutely obscene. Fights on the park, assaults on players, 20,000 singing about ****** b*****ds, criminal damage... but we've got a guy flicking the vicky's at the Rangers goalkeeper. One guy out of at least a few thousand doing the very same thing on the pitch. Where's the justice in that? In that article it was actually two guys out of at least a few thousand as opposed to one. One suspects that these won't be the last either.The broader point that if some guilty people aren't punished then it's unfair to punish some others is a weak one if you follow through the logic through. Edited May 25, 2016 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Yes. Why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Why? Do you find that kind of behavior acceptable at a football match in 21st century Scotland? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Although it was amusing to watch them being hoist on their own petard, there's no getting around the arguments that it was a poorly drafted piece of Nanny State legislation from a civil liberties standpoint. The Celtic groups preferred the NilByMouth Jock McConnell BoTP with sectarian aggravation approach that was clearly aimed at targeting Rangers supporters (the "Scotland's shame" slogan was also a cynical way for Labour to undermine the shared sense of Scottish identity and to to shore up their support amongst Roman Catholics in and around Glasgow) and believed their own propaganda to such an extent that they were completely oblivious to how their use of political correctness as an identity politics weapon was likely to eventually boomerang on them when a more balanced piece of legislation was brought in that included songs about terrorism and eliminated their "that's political" line of defence. People in glass house shouldn't throw stones. A better approach would be to beef up BoTP legislation and to stop trying to tack on something extra about motivations or the venue where it happened. Courts already take the circumstances into account when sorting out fines and sentences, so a catch all piece of legislation like that provides plenty of flexibility. I'm not entirely sure what you're on about but it seems as though you consider the law treating different behaviours differently to be a conspiracy of some kind and that you advocate the legislative equivalent of a referee showing two players a yellow card because he doesn't really know what happened or is just a plain old shitebag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Ah yes because its not all run past the crown office before he goes to court and the marking PF doesnt have the chance to change the charge in any way. Cmon man. What makes you think the Fiscal aren't being political, seeking a football banning order for a first time offender? You know fine well the kind of confrontation that would be created if the Crown Office turned round and tried to change a charge sheet. The Police lean on them all the time with this. You are a shameless PC Plod apologist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) Breach of the peace? Threatening behaviour? I see he was done with "offensive gesticulating" presumably he made a gesture as if he was shaking coffee beans at the keeper? Folk are happy for that to be behaviour that is criminalised?? He was on the pitch, two foot away from the keeper when he made an alleged gesture. It was not one in thousands. As for Ad Libs list of theoretical offences: lol. Edited May 25, 2016 by HaikuHibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 He was on the pitch, two foot away from the keeper when he made an alleged gesture. It was not one in thousands. As for Ad Libs list of theoretical offences: lol. There's nothing theoretical about it. What has been described is an assault. It's analogically identical to literally the seminal case on assault in Scotland that says you don't need physical contact (Atkinson v HM Advocate, where someone committed assault by jumping over a shop counter wearing ski mask). It clearly meets the threatening behaviour criteria of s38, and simply being part of the pitch invasion alone meets an arguable case of BOTP let alone what he did over and above that. OBAF had exactly zero impact on whether or not the lad could be prosecuted, yet at a time of extreme controversy as to the merits, necessity and restraint and precision of the law the Police decided to charge him under it. Why do you think that is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 In that article it was actually two guys out of at least a few thousand as opposed to one. One suspects that these won't be the last either. The broader point that if some guilty people aren't punished then it's unfair to punish some others is a weak one if you follow through the logic through. If that's the most immediate and criminal act they can find though, what is the point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 You know fine well the kind of confrontation that would be created if the Crown Office turned round and tried to change a charge sheet. like i said before you may be an excellent legal academic but you have absolutely no working knowledge, pf calls the shots, they dont care if the chief himself phones they decide the charge based on lord advocates instructions, charges get changed all the time. The Fiscal always has the final say about which charges go forward. If the reporting agency disagree with this, it's highly likely that he will choose to abandon the prosecution. Accordingly, it's very uncommon for a reporting agency to argue with a proposed change. This, of course, assumes that the PF discusses his proposed changes with the reporting agency. Often, when changes are made to draft charges, they are made without any consultation whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 The Fiscal always has the final say about which charges go forward. If the reporting agency disagree with this, it's highly likely that he will choose to abandon the prosecution. Accordingly, it's very uncommon for a reporting agency to argue with a proposed change. Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of the 1st and 3rd. Nor is any of it inconsistent with the notion that the Police deliberately choose between certain charges or make representations to the Fiscal in relation to the choice between one charge or another regularly. You are not often going to see prosecutions abandoned over a disagreement about whether to push for one charge or another when the two charges are sufficiently similar that the accused is probably guilty of both. This, of course, assumes that the PF discusses his proposed changes with the reporting agency. Often, when changes are made to draft charges, they are made without any consultation whatsoever. Well indeed, but that doesn't mean that the Police don't often make representations in instances where the appropriate or preferred charge has the potential to be ambiguous. With an area of the criminal law this politically controversial and/or sensitive, there is also far greater likelihood of representations and attempts to influence Fiscals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Yep, ive seen cases thrown out due to silly mistakes made by fiscals changing charges and not consulting and the subsequent charge not having a sufficiency when the matter goes to court. The fiscal has final say, ad libs suggestion shows just how out of touch he is currently! get to a fiscals office mate!! At absolutely no point did I suggest, imply or say that the Procurator Fiscal doesn't have the final say. Zero points, Plod. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Do you find that kind of behavior acceptable at a football match in 21st century Scotland? I find lots of behavior unacceptable that shouldn't be criminalised. For example, adults wearing full football kits, I just (and only just) feel should fall below the line of criminal behavior. You answered a question with a question though. Just to be clear hear, you are happy that in Scotland someone could get a criminal conviction for gesturing offensively at a football player? Yes or no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 I find lots of behavior unacceptable that shouldn't be criminalised. For example, adults wearing full football kits, I just (and only just) feel should fall below the line of criminal behavior. You answered a question with a question though. Just to be clear hear, you are happy that in Scotland someone could get a criminal conviction for gesturing offensively at a football player? Yes or no? Yes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 (edited) Yes That's just daft. I'd have a record the length of a gorillas arm if that was the case. Edited May 26, 2016 by ayrmad 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.