Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 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. The reasonable person test now also forms part of the new working definition for a BOP also now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: The reasonable person test now also forms part of the new working definition for a BOP also now. Does that reasonable person have to be present? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, DublinMagyar said: 4 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: 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? I think, Maggy, it's fair to say there aren't. This whole farrago is all about folk being offended and, it's fair to say, that the torch-bearers were 'them' rather than 'us'. (though I would say that etc). The blue touch paper was the so-called Famine Song which caused the grey and green hordes to petition various Irish embassies to express how offended they were. The result was wee Jack bringing this pile of shite onto the statute books. I agree with the Celtic fans that it's a dreadful piece of legislation. I still reserve the right to laugh at them. They expected a Sevco Behaviour at Football Act but ended up with something that showed they were also, well, offensive. That they are now spitting the dummy is amusing. Still, the whole thing is absolute nonsense and should be repealed immediately. Edited January 23, 2018 by The_Kincardine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Does that reasonable person have to be present? section 38 Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland act doesnt need the person to be present. Im not sure exactly about BOP but tbf i’ve not done any criminal law stuff since uni. . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 18 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: The reasonable person test now also forms part of the new working definition for a BOP also now. I don’t think common law BOP contains a reasonable person test, is it not s.38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 that introduced that? That’s another law which seems a bit shit to me, no-one has to be alarmed or in fear, so long as a hypothetical possibly could’ve been. Tbf BOP does refer to ordinary people which is also pretty woolly, but it’s qualified by words like “severe” and “serious” and I’d argue alarm and fear inducing behaviour is less subjective than offensive behaviour . The Offensive Behaviour Act is a step further down the already wooly public order offences road, making it illegal to utter “something that might’ve been offensive to a hypothetical as long as it happened at or on the way to a football game whether or not anyone was actually offended”. I wonder how many other western democratic jurisdictions criminalise causing offence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: I think, Maggy, it's fair to say there aren't. This whole farrago is all about folk being offended and, it's fair to say, that the torch-bearers were 'them' rather than 'us'. (though I would say that etc). The blue touch paper was the so-called Famine Song which caused the grey and green hordes to petition various Irish embassies to express how offended they were. The result was wee Jack bringing this pile of shite onto the statute books. I agree with the Celtic fans that it's a dreadful piece of legislation. I still reserve the right to laugh at them. They expected a Sevco Behaviour at Football Act but ended up with something that showed they were also, well, offensive. That they are now spitting the dummy is amusing. Still, the whole thing is absolute nonsense and should be repealed immediately. The equal and opposite story I heard was that The Act was brought in to even up the score. The blatantly racist and sectarian songs Rangers 1872 - 2012 supporters indulged in were easier to prosecute under existing laws whereas Irish ditties weren’t. I don’t give much credence to obviously partial fairy stories like either the one I have quoted from you or the other I have referred to above though. Edited January 23, 2018 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 1 minute ago, The OP said: The equal and opposite story I heard was that The Act brought in to even up the score. The blatantly racist and sectarian songs Rangers 1872 - 2012 supporters indulged in were easier to prosecute under existing laws whereas Irish ditties weren’t. I don’t give much credence to obviously partial fairy stories like either the one I have quoted from you or the other I have referred to above though. I did, though, give a caveat since I am a reasonable person. Now we both have the same intent. Let's not spoil it by indulging in tit-for-tat pish. Deal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 I don’t think common law BOP contains a reasonable person test, is it not s.38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 that introduced that? That’s another law which seems a bit shit to me, no-one has to be alarmed or in fear, so long as a hypothetical possibly could’ve been. I think it is there largely for domestic abuse type situations, where the partner is threatened with violence, I suppose it gives the police the right to be the alarmed people on behalf of victims to ensure cases get to court maybe? Im guessing this due to sec 39 of that act being about Stalking etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Just now, The_Kincardine said: I did, though, give a caveat since I am a reasonable person. Now we both have the same intent. Let's not spoil it by indulging in tit-for-tat pish. Deal? The only guarantee I can give is that if you post jackanory stuff like that one from 10mins ago there’s a reasonable chance I’ll respond. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, The OP said: The only guarantee I can give is that if you post jackanory stuff like that one from 10mins ago there’s a reasonable chance I’ll respond. That's a 'no' then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: I think it is there largely for domestic abuse type situations, where the partner is threatened with violence, I suppose it gives the police the right to be the alarmed people on behalf of victims to ensure cases get to court maybe? Im guessing this due to sec 39 of that act being about Stalking etc. That might be the intention but from reading up on it (Iast studied criminal law in 2011) it seems like a lot of the leading authorities (and therefore the cases on the margins) are those where someone has shouted threats and abuse at police officers who took it in their stride. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 That might be the intention but from reading up on it (Iast studied criminal law in 2011) it seems like a lot of the leading authorities (and therefore the cases on the margins) are those where someone has shouted threats and abuse at police officers who took it in their stride. You certainly did study it more recently than me. I suppose though, there should be an offence for making threats of violence etc (yes I know theres common law threats but with the move towards statutory law that seems to be the done thing). I think it would make the police seem really redundant if they couldn’t arrest someone for shouting and swearing at them (serious threats I mean not just a random ‘f**k off ya cnuts type thing) where a BOP might not be appropriate, it’d look quite silly for the rozzers to just walk away from that. I’d need to read case law and the like to form a complete opinion on it and tbh I really don’t want to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 One of The main problem I have with laws around offence and those likely to “incite others” is that it legitimises any kind of over reaction if your feelings are hurt. If someone is likely to instigate a riot because they hear someone say something which they don’t like- then it is them that are needing monitored by the police I would suggest, rather than creating a law to protect people’s subjective sensibilities. The be against the monarchy or the teachings of a particular religious doctrine Is a perfectly legitimate standpoint that should not be criminalised because it is expressed in a simplistic fashion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 15 hours ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: 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. Risible nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 12 hours ago, The_Kincardine said: Don't use a big word when you don't know what it means. The link to the meaning is right there in the post, dimwit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 13 hours ago, The OP said: This law is far more subjective than the vast majority (if not all) existing statutory and common law offences. That's a subjective opinion. If there is an issue with a law that requires detailed training then the police should get it. As they do with sexual offences, for instance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Risible nonsense. you really should not comment upon things of which you know absolutely nothing about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said: you really should not comment upon things of which you know absolutely nothing about. Jesus, how hard is it to understand that the arresting officer has to make a decision on the offender's behaviour. You can be arrested for breach of the peace when there isn't a soul in sight and in a thirty acre field, ffs. You act as if this is something new and unreasonable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: That's a subjective opinion. If there is an issue with a law that requires detailed training then the police should get it. As they do with sexual offences, for instance. It's not really all that subjective. Sexual Offences legislation clearly defines conducts which are illegal whereas this Act has a broad and vague catch-all which provides the police with a lot of scope to justifiably arrest anyone for anything. In any event, in the grand scheme of things, prosecuting sexual offences is a far, far more important task for the police than determining whether something said or done at a football ground might offend a hypothetical person. 1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said: Jesus, how hard is it to understand that the arresting officer has to make a decision on the offender's behaviour. You can be arrested for breach of the peace when there isn't a soul in sight and in a thirty acre field, ffs. You act as if this is something new and unreasonable. Not sure that would satisfy the 'public element' requirement for breach of the peace tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, The OP said: It's not really all that subjective. Sexual Offences legislation clearly defines conducts which are illegal whereas this Act has a broad and vague catch-all which provides the police with a lot of scope to justifiably arrest anyone for anything. "Sexual touching" and "sexual coercion" still rely on subjective assessment, so no. 7 minutes ago, The OP said: Not sure that would satisfy the 'public element' requirement for breach of the peace tbh. It's in public, the public just aren't present. 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.