Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[The_Kincardine]

Everybody, that's who. My family is very similar to the one mentioned in the article, and I stopped going to Ibrox when I was old enough to make the choice for myself, and started going to Sauchie Juniors one week and Alloa the next for years. I have only been to Ibrox three times since 1971 and on one of those occasions I ended up in the Southern General because of an act of hooliganism. The only times that the atmosphere at the Recs has been totally poisonous has been during the visits of, surprise, surprise Rangers and Sevco. That is why the article is essential reading. Never was a truer statement made than "There are none so blind as those who will not see. Rant over....

And it relates to this thread in what way?

[bob the tank]

And it relates to this thread in what way?

Go and force yourself to read the article, it is about offensive behaviour at football which a former Rangers supporter found unacceptable and which this thread is all about.

[John Lambies Doos]

Have the rangers apologised to the first minister yet?

[LongTimeLurker]

Go and force yourself to read the article, it is about offensive behaviour at football which a former Rangers supporter found unacceptable and which this thread is all about.

 

Behaviour that the police long turned a blind eye to but could easily have been dealt with using Breach of the Peace legislation, but there's less scope for pushing people's buttons at a visceral level on identity politics by doing things that way (Look at that Union Jack the uncouth lumpen prole is carrying Torquail, we must do something about this! Yes Catriona, we will really nail them with a new law once we get into power, muahahahaha) through a change in policing methods, so politicians prefer to generate new superfluous legislation so they are seen to actively deal with whoever is regarded as the "enemy within" to put it in Margaret Thatcher terms in the prevailing political climate. Then the other set of party political tossers feel a need to oppose it, simply because it was their opponents initiative and change it to something else when they get into power and on and on....

[Baxter Parp]

LongTimeLurker, on 28 May 2016 - 18:36, said:

The subject of the thread is the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why it provides anything that couldn't be achieved with Breach of the Peace.

Because it achieved nothing.

[Baxter Parp]

For whom is that essential reading

You apparently.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I can only assume that those saying the old system was inferior and achieved nothing haven't heard the Rangers fans at any of their big games recently. Or Celtic fans at away matches.

[itzdrk]

Go and force yourself to read the article, it is about offensive behaviour at football which a former Rangers supporter found unacceptable and which this thread is all about.

Always thought there was something abit 'Rangersy' about him.weird cunto. Is he no on here as a stenny fan?

Edited May 29, 2016 by itzdrk

[HaikuHibee]

The subject of the thread is the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. I have yet to see a convincing argument for why it provides anything that couldn't be achieved with Breach of the Peace.

Say you want to ban sectarian singing. Ad Lib was arguing for "racially aggrivated" BOTP so presumably in that case the singing was a BOTP but the lyrics made the BOTP more serious. You would therefore have to define what songs constitute a breach of the peace unless you would want to ban singing, which would effectively be the OBFA.

[LongTimeLurker]

On the first point, this brings us back to the fact that the maximum sentence for BoTP is life imprisonment, if you try the case at a high enough court. On the second point the usual yardstick on BoTP is, "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community". That makes, "you're going to get your ****ing heads kick in" a BoTP, while "Here we go here we go here we go" clearly will usually not be an issue. Can you explain how the OBFA adds something that differs significantly from what would be regarded as an issue under BoTP?

[Ad Lib]

Say you want to ban sectarian singing. Ad Lib was arguing for "racially aggrivated" BOTP so presumably in that case the singing was a BOTP but the lyrics made the BOTP more serious. You would therefore have to define what songs constitute a breach of the peace unless you would want to ban singing, which would effectively be the OBFA.

Breach of the peace does not make "singing" an offence. It is the context in which someone is singing that must give rise to a factual assessment of whether it would have the effect of breaching the peace.

Aggravation has two aspects to it, broadly. One is motive and one is the wider effect on a group that has been targeted by criminal behaviour. Both of them require that what was being done was and should be a crime in the first place.

[HaikuHibee]

On the first point, this brings us back to the fact that the maximum sentence for BoTP is life imprisonment, if you try the case at a high enough court. On the second point the usual yardstick on BoTP is, "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community". That makes, "you're going to get your ****ing heads kick in" a BoTP, while "Here we go here we go here we go" clearly will usually not be an issue. Can you explain how the OBFA adds something that differs significantly from what would be regarded as an issue under BoTP?

If you sing mary had a little lamb with just as much vigor as "We are the Billy Boys" both would have to be BOTP offences at the football unless you strictly define the types of songs that could be considered BOTP at a football match. In other words, we would have the OBFA.

[HaikuHibee]

Breach of the peace does not make "singing" an offence. It is the context in which someone is singing that must give rise to a factual assessment of whether it would have the effect of breaching the peace.

Aggravation has two aspects to it, broadly. One is motive and one is the wider effect on a group that has been targeted by criminal behaviour. Both of them require that what was being done was and should be a crime in the first place.

That system would be far more opaque, less effective than an OBFA, and require much more police discretion. I can understand the libertarian angle you took earlier, your position now makes no sense. You are now saying that the legislation is draconian and no different from the existing legislation, which is fine.

[LongTimeLurker]

Sorry I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what is meant by BoTP. It has nothing to do with decibel level in the context of a football ground. It has to be something that causes alarm, offence, annoyance etc and threatens to cause disruption to the community. The Billy Boys fits, pro-PIRA song fit, Mary had a little lamb doesn't unless there are some alternative lyrics I am blissfully unaware of. 

[HaikuHibee]

Sorry I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what is meant by BoTP. It has nothing to do with decibel level in the context of a football ground. It has to be something that causes alarm, offence, annoyance etc and threatens to cause disruption to the community. The Billy Boys fits, pro-PIRA song fit, Mary had a little lamb doesn't unless there are some alternative lyrics I am blissfully unaware of.

That is not for you or me to decide though, but a policeman. If you use BOTP routinely, all the problems of OBFA would be amplified, and I cannot see any benefits.

Edited May 29, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[LongTimeLurker]

You really think the police are not carefully briefed in these situations on where the line that needs to be crossed is before somebody gets lifted? Decisions like that are not made on a whim by an ordinary street level PC regardless of what legislation is in place. What happened in the past is that the relevant legislation wasn't being implimented and that was the real issue that needed to be addressed.

[Granny Danger]

You really think the police are not carefully briefed in these situations on where the line that needs to be crossed is before somebody gets lifted? Decisions like that are not made on a whim by an ordinary street level PC regardless of what legislation is in place. What happened in the past is that the relevant legislation wasn't being implimented and that was the real issue that needed to be addressed.

This is a relevant point. The decision to go into a crowd singing sectarian songs and lifting one or more miscreants is not down to individual officers. The failure to effect such a strategy is taken at command level.

However the lack of accountability of the police in this country goes well beyond this issue.

[Ad Lib]

That system would be far more opaque, less effective than an OBFA, and require much more police discretion. I can understand the libertarian angle you took earlier, your position now makes no sense. You are now saying that the legislation is draconian and no different from the existing legislation, which is fine.

Except I have called for BOTP to be narrowed further than it currently is. The problem with OFBA is it doesn't narrow it. It's specification very clearly and substantially expands what you can prosecute and those expansions are gratuitous, unnecessary, and infringe fundamental rights.

[Ad Lib]

On the first point, this brings us back to the fact that the maximum sentence for BoTP is life imprisonment, if you try the case at a high enough court. On the second point the usual yardstick on BoTP is, "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community". That makes, "you're going to get your ****ing heads kick in" a BoTP, while "Here we go here we go here we go" clearly will usually not be an issue. Can you explain how the OBFA adds something that differs significantly from what would be regarded as an issue under BoTP?

You're talking absolute bollocks. Breach of the Peace and s38 violations attract a maximum custodial sentence of 5 years on indictment and in any case it is unusual to push for that. The overwhelming majority of custodial sentences given for BOTP are no longer than 12 months.

[LongTimeLurker]

There is a difference between what normally happens and what legally could happen. The theoretical maximum for BoTP is life in prison even if it is seldom if ever applied. Even a mention of a five year custodial sentence as the ceiling shows there is more than enough leeway for using this legislation to deal with the singing of naughty songs at a football game in a sledgehammer to a peanut sort of way and that it can't sensibly be viewed as a trivial charge that needed to be replaced with something new to make the legal system more stringent. Jack McConnell and Donald Gorrie had an identity politics agenda when they decided to play around with sectarian aggravations. They wanted to be seen to be protecting a certain group from another group in the hope that the former group would vote for them rather than the SNP.