Ad Lib Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 FIFA and UEFA would only have issues if the Scottish Government were to introduce sporting punishments, like points deductions. I'm not sure what side of the fence a statutory regime to force closed door games would fall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The entire senior grade depends on the Old Firm for its subsidy drip feed, so they are not going anywhere unless there's a breakaway by elite clubs across Europe from being under the control of UEFA, which is highly unlikely. Why should season ticket holders of the home team ever be banned from watching their team, if they have done nothing wrong on an individual basis? Collective punishments are highly dodgy on a civil liberties point of view being more the domain of tinpot dictatorships than modern liberal democracies. Think as far as you could reasonably go is to ban visiting supporters and make entry by home team supporters season ticket only for certain high risk games. Point deductions is a bridge that should never be crossed. The outcome in sporting achievement terms should depend only on what happens on the field of play, but there are clearly a lot of people within Scottish society who are bitter enough about the mere sight of an Irish Tricolour, a Union Jack or a Red Hand to be willing cross that particular redline in a fit of populist angst, unfortunately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The entire senior grade depends on the Old Firm for its subsidy drip feed, That is just nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Another non-sequitur to kick things off. If the Scottish government directly interferes in how the sport governs itself then there is a real danger of being suspended from FIFA. How the police and courts deal with people breaking laws is a separate issue from Mr Hokey Cokey trying to directly dictate how the SFA and SPFL apply sanctions against their member clubs for stuff that happens off the field. Cries about non-sequiturs - then inserts a non-sequitur to try and make his ramshackle argument stack up. No one has suggested that the Scottish Government will "directly dictate" the sanctions to be made by the footballing authorities. They have on the other hand indicated that the considerable taxpayer subsidy being handed over to Scottish football clubs and organisations going towards youth development can and may be withheld if the footballing authorities don't take credible action. Which they have every right to determine. And they also have every right to legislate against scumbag fan behaviour: an alternative that of course was met with shrieks of outrage from those concerned about bigotry but not actually concerned enough to back, erm... any measures whatsoever to stop it. The entire senior grade depends on the Old Firm for its subsidy drip feed, Utter bollocks. Why should season ticket holders of the home team ever be banned from watching their team, if they have done nothing wrong on an individual basis? Collective punishments are highly dodgy on a civil liberties point of view being more the domain of tinpot dictatorships than modern liberal democracies. That would be why so-called 'collective punishments' imposed on scumbag fans in Italy, the Balkans and any other part of Europe have been successfully challenged in the courts as being "highly dodgy on a civil liberties point of view". Oh wait, that's right: a football match is actually a private event, attendance to which can quite clearly be regulated by the football association and individual clubs, as well as by the police and the law courts. It has nothing to do with civil liberties whatsoever. Another straw man claim. Think as far as you could reasonably go is to ban visiting supporters and make entry by home team supporters season ticket only for certain high risk games. Point deductions is a bridge that should never be crossed. Point deductions are already applied for teams that make an arse of correctly registering their players or noting suspensions, as well as for financial mismanagement. Why should scumbag fan behaviour not lead to a direct punishment for the club in question? Once again, the supposedly concerned opponents of the Football Act turn out to be, when pushed at all, not actually in favour of strict liability, and also not in favour of the measures brought in by the SG because strict liability was going nowhere within the football authorities. It's almost as if they have no interest in tackling the problem (or don't recognise bigotry and scumbag behaviour in a public place to be a problem), but are hiding behind a concern for 'civil liberties' instead. The outcome in sporting achievement terms should depend only on what happens on the field of play, but there are clearly a lot of people within Scottish society who are bitter enough about the mere sight of an Irish Tricolour, a Union Jack or a Red Hand to be willing cross that particular redline in a fit of populist angst, unfortunately. Oooft - safe to say that the only person coming across bitter on this thread - falsely claiming that the entire Scottish game is dependent on the Old Firm; falsely claiming that points deductions are a line of punishment that shouldn't be used to punish misdemeanours - is yourself champ. A thinly veiled Sevconian still absolutely seething about the administration of your old, dead club, the punishments that were rightly applied to that car-crash of an outfit by the authorities, and the reputation that your knuckle-dragging fanbase has rightly earned as Scotland's Shame. Gutted for you that despite your endless proclamations to be ra peepul, you are in fact absolutely powerless to act against a wildly popular administration that has identified your ilk as part of the problem. Edited June 5, 2016 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) There is nothing wrong with forced closed door games or sporting punishments like points deductions. Indeed, they should be used. Extensively. Unapologetically. The issue is that the SFA and SPFL should be imposing them. The international football governing bodies would not be comfortable with a government imposing those kind of things over the heads of the domestic footballing authorities. Edited June 5, 2016 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 That is just nonsense. Really? How much money do you think the broadcasters would provide without the Old Firm and how much money would league and cup sponsors kick in if the two clubs supported by a majority of people in Scotland that follow the fortunes of Scottish clubs were no longer a factor? I saw numbers of 16% Rangers, 11% Celtic and 18% rest combined recently in a Panelbase opinion poll for wingsoverscotland about attitudes towards the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. There are even bigger issues with people only supporting two or three clubs in countries like Portugal, Croatia and Serbia, but that's still a drastic skew in support terms. http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-the-north-was-lost/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 The authorities could refuse to issue a safety certificate for the ground etc, might be a winner as opposed to the obafa. That would almost certainly be subjected to a successful judicial review. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) How much money do you think the broadcasters would provide without the Old Firm and how much money would league and cup sponsors kick in if the two clubs supported by a majority of people in Scotland that follow the fortunes of Scottish clubs were no longer a factor? What part of that reply negates my assertion that the line "The entire senior grade depends on the Old Firm for its subsidy drip feed" is just nonsense. Edited June 5, 2016 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Based on the actions at the cup final i dare say an argument could be made to suggest that games where sectarian singing happen can result in violence as was seen at the match there. Judicial review isn't about the merits of whether or not it's a good idea to stop football fans being present at a match where there's sectarian singing though. The judicial review would challenge the use of a power that is not directed towards that mischief. I can see challenges being made on rationality, relevancy of considerations and even an outside chance that they could be accused of using safety certificate issuing powers for an improper purpose. The function of a safety certificate under statute relates to the build quality, provision of reasonable stewarding and health and safety procedures etc. If the issuing authorities were to deny safety certificates based on factors relating to the conduct of fans, possibly not even in the same stadium, they'd get absolutely panned in the courts. No question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Based on the actions at the cup final i dare say an argument could be made to suggest that games where sectarian singing happen can result in violence as was seen at the match there. It could be made, but it would be an intellectual contortion. It could also be argued that the obsession with songs sung at the Rangers end as being symptomatic of all that is evil in Scottish society is what led to inadequate levels of police and stewards being deployed to the Hibs end. Have people really forgotten that Hibs and Aberdeen were the biggest problem from a casuals standpoint back in the 1980s? All of Scotland's social ills do not neatly revolve around the Old Firm and supporters of all major clubs are capable of causing problems, but hey if there's no Red Hands on display we can turn a blind eye to that. Making a huge fuss about criminalizing singing songs is a bit like Richard Nixon's over the top drugs war policies towards marijuana. It's all about finding a way to arrest a group of people in a deliberately targeted sort of way that the powers that be strongly disapprove of because their face doesn't fit within the prevailing culture of the silent majority, whose buttons need to be pushed at a visceral level to gain votes. The next few years are going to be interesting to watch in a sit back and grab some popcorn sort of way as the club that was supposed to be deid but never really was is about to make a re-appearance that will be about as welcome as the proverbial turd in the punch bowl where most of the influential political hacks within Scotland's elite are concerned. Edited June 5, 2016 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedafc Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Ridiculous knee jerk legislation that penalised decent fans, as is this strict responsibility bill SNP are considering after Hibs fans behaviour at Scottish Cup Final 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) Strict Liability is in place in many countries across Europe, including in England. Scottish clubs unilaterally decided not to adopt it with no consultation Edited June 6, 2016 by invergowrie arab 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) Ridiculous knee jerk legislation that penalised decent fans, as is this strict responsibility bill SNP are considering after Hibs fans behaviour at Scottish Cup Final How does either the Offensive Behaviour Act or strict responsibility for football clubs 'penalise' me going to watch a football latch and not being associated with bigoted and/or knuckle-dragging scumbags? Be extremely specific. Edited June 6, 2016 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keddaw Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 On 6/6/2016 at 16:09, virginton said: How does either the Offensive Behaviour Act or strict responsibility for football clubs 'penalise' me going to watch a football latch and not being associated with bigoted and/or knuckle-dragging scumbags? Be extremely specific. By allowing a police officer to determine what may be offensive to some random person and potentially criminalising your behaviour even though no-one was harmed, endangered or even offended - and it only applies if you're at, or on your way towards or from, a football match. It enables the police to arrest people who appear to be singing songs they don't like and penalises fans of smaller clubs as the police are more likely to wade into a crowd of a couple of dozen than a crowd of several thousand. It criminalises political speech at football grounds (YMMV on whether football grounds are the place for such speech, but surely that is up to the club not the police?) It leads to police and courts being tied up policing 'offence' rather than, you know, harmful crimes. It enables the police and government to act as thought police and proscribe certain terms, people and groups from (sections of) popular culture. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, keddaw said: By allowing a police officer to determine what may be offensive to some random person and potentially criminalising your behaviour even though no-one was harmed, endangered or even offended - and it only applies if you're at, or on your way towards or from, a football match. It enables the police to arrest people who appear to be singing songs they don't like and penalises fans of smaller clubs as the police are more likely to wade into a crowd of a couple of dozen than a crowd of several thousand. It criminalises political speech at football grounds (YMMV on whether football grounds are the place for such speech, but surely that is up to the club not the police?) It leads to police and courts being tied up policing 'offence' rather than, you know, harmful crimes. It enables the police and government to act as thought police and proscribe certain terms, people and groups from (sections of) popular culture. Well, that was worth waiting 18 months for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keddaw Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, Wee Bully said: Well, that was worth waiting 18 months for. Glad you could hang around for it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 It would be the procurator fiscal that determines that not a police officer. Which is kind of their job. If in doubt though don't sing bigoted songs and you'll be fine x 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 9 hours ago, keddaw said: By allowing a police officer to determine what may be offensive to some random person and potentially criminalising your behaviour even though no-one was harmed, endangered or even offended - and it only applies if you're at, or on your way towards or from, a football match. It enables the police to arrest people who appear to be singing songs they don't like and penalises fans of smaller clubs as the police are more likely to wade into a crowd of a couple of dozen than a crowd of several thousand. It criminalises political speech at football grounds (YMMV on whether football grounds are the place for such speech, but surely that is up to the club not the police?) It leads to police and courts being tied up policing 'offence' rather than, you know, harmful crimes. It enables the police and government to act as thought police and proscribe certain terms, people and groups from (sections of) popular culture. It'd have been quicker to say "It annoys Celtic and Rangers fans" tbqh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 It's not restricted to bigoted songs. It's offensive behaviour. And the PF will not be the one arresting people at the football, it will be the police. They will decide what is offensive and we all know that the policing of OF fans and non OF fans is not the same. To quote a policeman when asked if he thought the songs that the Celtic fans were singing were illegal under the law, he replied "Do you expect me to arrest them all?" Nest week we play Motherwell and the police will arrest folk for f**k all. (Or at least chuck them out) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, JamieThomas said: It'd have been quicker to say "It annoys Celtic and Rangers fans" tbqh It annoys me that there is a law which specifically discriminates against football fans. Why not offensive behaviour on a Saturday night at the pub or offensive behaviour at T in the Park? 1 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.