welshbairn Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Suspect Device said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42768401 Another specific law required? Or just enforce the existing laws? Giving enhanced punishment to people who attack people who are legally obliged to enforce the law seems fair. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 On 1/19/2018 at 19:17, The OP said: The most offended I’ve been at football is hearing Aberdeen and to a lesser extent Hibs supporters use paedophilia as one upmanship on the way to Hampden. You expect that stuff from the **** plus you don’t have to mix with them on a train platform. I could care not a jot whether the Pope or the IRA get fucked. Nonetheless, causing offence should not be a crime. I find myself in the rather strange position of agreeing with you. Aside from punishing football fans differently to other people there are two parts of this act that are fucking bonkers. The first is what you said - that it enshrines in law the criminalisation of causing someone to be pyoor offended. The relevant section speaks of, "other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive". This is utterly bonkers. My second object is a clause in the act that's even madder: Mr/Mrs Pyoor Offended doesn't actually have to witness said offense. It's enough that said offense/public disorder could have happened even if there's no one present. Thus we have an act which prosecutes people who cause offense even if no one is actually offended. How can that be right? Note to those who think this act is about bigoted/sectarian chants/songs. It isn't. It's all about cossetted precious wee souls and ensuring their sensitive ears aren't offended. Bless! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: I find myself in the rather strange position of agreeing with you. Aside from punishing football fans differently to other people there are two parts of this act that are fucking bonkers. The first is what you said - that it enshrines in law the criminalisation of causing someone to be pyoor offended. The relevant section speaks of, "other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive". This is utterly bonkers. My second object is a clause in the act that's even madder: Mr/Mrs Pyoor Offended doesn't actually have to witness said offense. It's enough that said offense/public disorder could have happened even if there's no one present. Thus we have an act which prosecutes people who cause offense even if no one is actually offended. How can that be right? Note to those who think this act is about bigoted/sectarian chants/songs. It isn't. It's all about cossetted precious wee souls and ensuring their sensitive ears aren't offended. Bless! I take offenCe to American spelling. I'm calling the cops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Suspect Device said: I take offenCe to American spelling. I'm calling the cops. I have no defense against this charge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 14 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: My second object is a clause in the act that's even madder: Mr/Mrs Pyoor Offended doesn't actually have to witness said offense. It's enough that said offense/public disorder could have happened even if there's no one present. Pish. The act in no way circumvents the principle of corroboration. You've made this bit up. 14 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Thus we have an act which prosecutes people who cause offense even if no one is actually offended. How can that be right? We don't, it isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 We don't, it isn't. We do and it Is. There doesn’t need to be anyone at all who is offended at the behaviour. It just needs to be behaviour at which someone who is “reasonable” would be offended at. However nobody “reasonable” has to be present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 What a surprise to see rangers fans upset they can no longer sing about being up to their knees in the blood of catholics. Utter utter utter cretins who live in the 17th century. Sadly for them the world has moved on and we see them for the Scottish they are. That's why the obfa is so popular. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DublinMagyar Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 We do and it Is. There doesn’t need to be anyone at all who is offended at the behaviour. It just needs to be behaviour at which someone who is “reasonable” would be offended at. However nobody “reasonable” has to be present. Is this an admission that there are no 'reasonable' people at Sevco/Celtic games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: What a surprise to see rangers fans upset they can no longer sing about being up to their knees in the blood of catholics. Utter utter utter cretins who live in the 17th century. Sadly for them the world has moved on and we see them for the Scottish they are. That's why the obfa is so popular. Fans against criminalisation is our green n grey friends, nothing to do with sevco. Magee tweets about it, give him a bell and he'll fill you in. Edited January 23, 2018 by bennett Predictive text thingy -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 29 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: It’s Celtic fans that have led the fight back you utter clown. It’s popular because the average person does not give, or is incapable, of giving any depth of thought to any issue. They don’t like something so they agree it should be banned. Or they agree with it because it feels like the kind of thing society dictates they support as “only bigots would oppose it” as we have seen on here. Only authoritarians who don’t support freedom of speech or expression and who have ridiculous levels of faith in the judgement of police officers would support it. You and Kincardine are rangers fans upset you can't sing bigoted songs anymore. Freedom of speech my arse, you just want to express your bigotry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: 1. I’m not a rangers fan. 2. Expressing opinions that may be regarded as “bigoted” is a freedom of speech issue. Sure It's also a societal issue and society has decided it's unacceptable. Unlucky for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Tbf as much as freedom of speech is a total non-issue perpetuated by dickheads there is an issue around putting faith in the police to apply the law correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, NotThePars said: Tbf as much as freedom of speech is a total non-issue perpetuated by dickheads there is an issue around putting faith in the police to apply the law correctly. You have that with every law. The pf decides if you get prosecuted, anyone can show a trend of wrongful prosecutions developing? Didn't think so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 You have that with every law. The pf decides if you get prosecuted, anyone can show a trend of wrongful prosecutions developing? Didn't think so. I wouldn’t know because I don’t pay much attention or care enough about this law, it was more of a general opinion about the police. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Just now, NotThePars said: I wouldn’t know because I don’t pay much attention or care enough about this law, it was more of a general opinion about the police. That's the case with all laws though, this one is no different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 If there is a justification for this football specific act as opposed to law enforcement simply applying existing general legislation it is because the institution of Scottish football itself is damaged when it is surrounded by bawbaggery. If we accept that Scottish football matters then we have to countenance the possibility that specific legislation could be justified and that behaviour that is tolerated elsewhere might not be tolerable at or around the game. Whether this act has actually helped clean up the game in it’s first few years or not should be the question rather than abstract theoretical arguments. I’m not convinced it’s actually helped but where I sit it wasn’t dirty beforehand so I wouldn’t know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: That's the case with all laws though, this one is no different. This law is far more subjective than the vast majority (if not all) existing statutory and common law offences. There is a reasonable person test which is something that generally only comes into criminal law when deciding the culpability of the accused, rather than to decide whether a crime has been committed. This means that this law is even more malleable than breach of the peace which, as I’ve said, has been claimed to contravene the right to freedom from retroactive criminalisation. Edited January 23, 2018 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loondave1 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Why?You want to start at high school again? No that was 1974. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 10 hours ago, Baxter Parp said: Pish. The act in no way circumvents the principle of corroboration. You've made this bit up. Don't use a big word when you don't know what it means. 2 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said: You and Kincardine are rangers fans upset you can't sing bigoted songs anymore. Freedom of speech my arse, you just want to express your bigotry. Stupid boy. The chances of me getting arrested at Ibrox any time soon are vanishingly small... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 What a surprise to see rangers fans upset they can no longer sing about being up to their knees in the blood of catholics. Utter utter utter cretins who live in the 17th century. Sadly for them the world has moved on and we see them for the Scottish they are. That's why the obfa is so popular. What does ‘the Scottish they are’ mean Pep? 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.