Ross. Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Yet you don't like it because of the SNP and because Stephen House is an arrogant tosser, which is much better, right? If you think there's no need for the OBF then you condone this: So f**k you, chum. I'm a card carrying, paid up SNP member as it happens, chum. I just think they need to be held to a higher standard in order to get where I want Scotland to be. I have not and will not condone nazi salutes or religious bigotry in the streets of Scotland. Both of which would have been covered by BOTP at the very least in the past. OBAF has changed nothing in terms of whether or not people could be charged with something. The fireworks I couldn't give a toss about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ross. said: I have not and will not condone nazi salutes or religious bigotry in the streets of Scotland. Both of which would have been covered by BOTP at the very least in the past. OBAF has You think bigotry and fascism warrants a slap on the wrist? Can't agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: You think bigotry and fascism warrants a slap on the wrist? Can't agree. Racially aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice are definitely covered by other legislation. OBAF or no OBAF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Ross. said: Racially aggravated harassment and offences aggravated by religious prejudice are definitely covered by other legislation. OBAF or no OBAF. Make your mind up then. What laws would you have used to combat the Union Bears on Sunday? Edited March 13, 2018 by Baxter Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Just now, Baxter Parp said: Make your mind up then. What laws would you have used to combat the Union Bears on Saturday? Do you want me to quote the specific laws? I can easily google them I guess. Seems they come under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act. Irrespective of that fact, whether other laws are applicable or OBAF is or isn't in place, the police would not have done much to stop that march on Sunday. It would have continued as it did, because they would rather contain it than risk it kicking off. As I have previously mentioned. OBAF, or a lack of it, changes nothing in respect of that approach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Patrick Harvie seems to think the OBFA is still active. Why didn’t they stop the march with that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ross. said: Do you want me to quote the specific laws? I can easily google them I guess. Seems they come under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act. Irrespective of that fact, whether other laws are applicable or OBAF is or isn't in place, the police would not have done much to stop that march on Sunday. It would have continued as it did, because they would rather contain it than risk it kicking off. As I have previously mentioned. OBAF, or a lack of it, changes nothing in respect of that approach. So fascists and bigots will be allowed to march through Scottish cities regardless using your approach. Not acceptable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 1 minute ago, NotThePars said: Patrick Harvie seems to think the OBFA is still active. Why didn’t they stop the march with that? What's your theory? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 What's your theory? I don’t have one. I’m legitimately interested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Just now, Baxter Parp said: So fascists and bigots will be allowed to march through Scottish cities regardless using your approach. Not acceptable. Not my approach. The approach of the police. You seem to be suggesting that this behaviour is only unacceptable in the context of it being football fans involved? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ross. said: Not my approach. The approach of the police. You seem to be suggesting that this behaviour is only unacceptable in the context of it being football fans involved? That is where the majority of sectarian issues arise. I'm all for laws targeting the right people in the right place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Insanity Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 What if they decided they weren't actually football fans and just a bunch of like minded young men out for a Saturday morning stroll? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said: If you think there's no need for the OBF then you condone this: So f**k you, chum. I've seen some exceptional fallacies on P&B, but that's right up there. This happened with the OBF in existence, meaning the OBF was useless to stop it. Furthermore, if people are arguing that the problem is existent powers which predated the OBF not being used correctly and would like the authorities to start using those powers, then in their eyes the status of the OBF is irrelevant to the failure to make arrests regarding this march. It's certainly a ridiculous leap to say that believing the problem is police not feeling able to take action against large groups rather than legislation equates to condoning Nazi salutes. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Yet you don't like it because of the SNP and because Stephen House is an arrogant tosser, which is much better, right? If you think there's no need for the OBF then you condone this: So f**k you, chum. It is of course possible to disapprove of behaviour without calling for people to be locked up for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crùbag Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: I've seen some exceptional fallacies on P&B, but that's right up there. This happened with the OBF in existence, meaning the OBF was useless to stop it. Furthermore, if people are arguing that the problem is existent powers which predated the OBF not being used correctly and would like the authorities to start using those powers, then in their eyes the status of the OBF is irrelevant to the failure to make arrests regarding this march. It's certainly a ridiculous leap to say that believing the problem is police not feeling able to take action against large groups rather than legislation equates to condoning Nazi salutes. Though, we're also told that 'other laws are sufficient' and they didn't stop it either. They didn't before the OBFA and won't now. Though.. we're also told that football fans are 'oppressed' and that such behaviour is legitimate 'working class expression' so any laws will be opposed presumably. What's it to be? The only alternative I've read, from the Greens, is Strict Liability. I'd support that as well as some kind of OBFA but how will SL be used to counter behaviour outside and away from the grounds, like we see above? Plus, there's no way the Old Firm would allow that. Vested interests... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Baxter Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 16 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: I've seen some exceptional fallacies on P&B, but that's right up there. This happened with the OBF in existence, meaning the OBF was useless to stop it. It's the Offensive Behaviour at Football act, not the Offensive Behaviour of Football Fans act, the "normal" laws are the ones that failed. The biggest fallacy in this thread is the one that says the act criminalises football fans - it doesn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 13 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: It is of course possible to disapprove of behaviour without calling for people to be locked up for it. You can "disapprove" of impoliteness, the Union Bears indulged in criminal behaviour and should be locked up for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: It's the Offensive Behaviour at Football act, not the Offensive Behaviour of Football Fans act, the "normal" laws are the ones that failed. The biggest fallacy in this thread is the one that says the act criminalises football fans - it doesn't. Then why did you say someone who supported the removal of the Act was condoning the behaviour of people on that march, considering that it wasn't at a football match? I agree that the 'normal' laws are the ones failing here, but that being the case why does it follow that the removal of the Act is the cause of this behaviour? I could do you a favour here by pointing out that the Act has been used for offences that aren't committed at the football several times - in 16/17 31% of charges brought under the Act were for offences committed outwith football stadiums - but I'd again come back to other laws here, in that a group of people marching down the street making Nazi salutes should be arrested and charged whether they're doing so on their way to a game of football or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 You can "disapprove" of impoliteness, the Union Bears indulged in criminal behaviour and should be locked up for it. That’s circular logic It’s starting from the presumption that the law is justified and then using that to justify the law. Your heart may be in the right place but you’re really not doing your case any favours Maybe you should leave defending the OFBA to someone with some kind of grasp on critical reasoning. After all it appears that your contributions thus far have been less driven by a desire for meaningful dialectic than a need to let everyone know how much you don’t like Union Jack waving Rangers fans, a reasonable ambition but one which must surely have been fulfilled by now. There is a case against repeal but you should probably accept that you’re not capable of making it. 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.