Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[The_Kincardine]

Genuinely can't understand the mentality of anyone who would sing the Billy boys. It's fukin absurd

I'd not disagree with you but, as I said earlier, it was never a "Singing nasty songs" Act - however it's been portrayed.

[John Lambies Doos]

I'd not disagree with you but, as I said earlier, it was never a "Singing nasty songs" Act - however it's been portrayed.

Unfortunately not everyone shares your views.

It should be self policed. Eg if you were at game, would you and the majority of your fans challenge someone who was singing Billy boys?

[Jacksgranda]

Aha, we're getting somewhere! You might think that, and I might think that, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

 

A reasonable person (possibly the wife of the referee) could easily claim that such behaviour is offensive and therefore criminal.

 

It certainly wouldn't be his father.

[The_Kincardine]

I'd not disagree with you but, as I said earlier, it was never a "Singing nasty songs" Act - however it's been portrayed.

Unfortunately not everyone shares your views.

Well it simply isn't.  There may be a need for such action but tell me how I'm wrong.

[Jacksgranda]

Mental how many people the parties are doing this due to some bitter hatred of the SNP and not because the legislation itself is utter shite

 

 

Missing a 'think' from this, chappy?

 

Thanks for clearing that up - I couldn't make sense of it at all!

[Ad Lib]

I am not saying any of those things - you are attributing ideas to me that I haven't expressed.

I said that I think it would be better (in this instance) to have some alternative plans in place (not necessarily laws) in place to address Scottish footballs problems or that repealing this law will look like exactly what it is, a move to gain popular opinion instead of a serious attempt at fixing a bad law with a credible alternative approach.

I have never said it was necessary or essential to have an alternative, in order to repeal this law, or any law.

In post 170 you are very clear about your position. You say that you would rather that it was not repealed straight away. I find this abhorrent, because you are prioritising the "solving of sectarianism" over free speech. You are saying it is better that we deal with the sectarianism first.

I consider that to be creepy. Fundamental rights come first. All the time.

The immediate repeal of the Act is not mutually exclusive with a single "alternative" to which you refer. You are interposing a time delay that is simply unacceptable from the standpoint of freedom of speech.

The absence of additional or alternative measures does not make the repeal of the Act in and of itself an absolute and pressing moral necessity. Legislatures should prioritise the repealling of bad laws that violate fundamental rights over the solving of social problems. They are not legitimate unless they do so.

Therefore what I said was correct. You think the immediate repeal of the Act should be in some sense conditional.

[John Lambies Doos]

Well it simply isn't. There may be a need for such action but tell me how I'm wrong.

I was talking about fans singing the Billy boys... ie you said you didn't but not everyone will refrain from singing it.... hence I asked if you and the majority of fans would self police and challenge anyone who does?

[Ad Lib]

Within the confines of the law.  You cannot seriously be suggesting that things like cock-fighting, smoking, drug dealing, prostitution etc. is OK as long as it is not performed in a public venue.

With the exception of cock-fighting, which should be illegal regardless of where it is practiced because it inflicts gratuitous violence and pain on animals, this is *exactly* what I am saying. Prostitution, dealing of drugs and smoking should not be criminalised either in public or in private.

[John Lambies Doos]

With the exception of cock-fighting, which should be illegal regardless of where it is practiced because it inflicts gratuitous violence and pain on animals, this is *exactly* what I am saying. Prostitution, dealing of drugs and smoking should not be criminalised either in public or in private.

Are you mad... what about drug dealers selling 14yr olds heroin. You don't think this should be criminalised?

[Ad Lib]

Are you mad... what about drug dealers selling 14yr olds heroin. You don't think this should be criminalised?

*obviously* I'd ban the sale to minors in the same way we control alcohol and tobacco. This is not the point though. Nothing that may lawfully be done in a public place should be unlawful in a private one. Drug-dealing, in and of itself, prostitution, and smoking should not be criminal offences in a public place. Having established that, I would oppose the criminalisation of any of these things in private places.

[The_Kincardine]

With the exception of cock-fighting, which should be illegal regardless of where it is practiced because it inflicts gratuitous violence and pain on animals, this is *exactly* what I am saying. Prostitution, dealing of drugs and smoking should not be criminalised either in public or in private.

I'm relaxed about this. I doubt any sane person would have an issue here.

[Jambomo]

In post 170 you are very clear about your position. You say that you would rather that it was not repealed straight away. I find this abhorrent, because you are prioritising the "solving of sectarianism" over free speech. You are saying it is better that we deal with the sectarianism first.

I consider that to be creepy. Fundamental rights come first. All the time.

The immediate repeal of the Act is not mutually exclusive with a single "alternative" to which you refer. You are interposing a time delay that is simply unacceptable from the standpoint of freedom of speech.

The absence of additional or alternative measures does not make the repeal of the Act in and of itself an absolute and pressing moral necessity. Legislatures should prioritise the repealling of bad laws that violate fundamental rights over the solving of social problems. They are not legitimate unless they do so.

Therefore what I said was correct. You think the immediate repeal of the Act should be in some sense conditional.

I would prefer that when they repeal the law, as they will, they outline an alternative strategy towards tackling the problems in the game. There need not be any meaningful time delay, any responsible opponents to the law surely already have some workable solutions in mind if actually not already in practice.

To repeal the law with no ready suggestion of an alternative smacks of opportunism. To not consider, at all, the problem that the law was brought in to tackle would be wrong imo.

I am not saying that it is necessary or essential to have something before the law is repealed, this is only my preference and what I think - in this instance - would be the best approach.

That is not the same as the ideas of "prioritising solving sectarianism" (which is surely impossible) and supporting the repressing of free speech which you are attributing to me. You talk about me as though I'm supporting some fascist state instead of the repealing of a single bad law 😂

In all honesty the hyperbole and over-emotional language that you have used throughout make it nearly impossible to have a sensible discussion about this with you.

Not thinking a law should be repealed immediately is "abhorrent", a "creepy" opinion etc is language which is completely out of proportion with this thread and is probably why people consider you an utterly tedious poster who effectively ruins any thread you contribute to.

[HaikuHibee]

Everyone shut up. Let's hear what Ad Lib thinks guys. Lib Dem Q&A

Edited May 16, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[HaikuHibee]

Not thinking a law should be repealed immediately is "abhorrent", a "creepy" opinion etc is language which is completely out of proportion with this thread and is probably why people consider you an utterly tedious poster who effectively ruins any thread you contribute to.

 

It's a deflection. It is SFA inaction, that's what took us here.

Edited May 16, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[The_Kincardine]

Everyone shut up. Let's hear what Ad Lib thinks guys. Lib Dem Q&A

 

 

It's a deflection. It is SFA inaction, that's the problem here.

That worked well for you.

[John Lambies Doos]

I was talking about fans singing the Billy boys... ie you said you didn't but not everyone will refrain from singing it.... hence I asked if you and the majority of fans would self police and challenge anyone who does?

Care to answer kincardine?

[HaikuHibee]

That worked well for you.

 

Come on Kincardine. It's getting fucking silly.

 

*obviously* I'd ban the sale to minors in the same way we control alcohol and tobacco.

 

 

Prostitution, dealing of drugs and smoking should not be criminalised either in public or in private.

 

What's the relevance?

[Ad Lib]

I would prefer that when they repeal the law, as they will, they outline an alternative strategy towards tackling the problems in the game. There need not be any meaningful time delay, any responsible opponents to the law surely already have some workable solutions in mind if actually not already in practice.

To repeal the law with no ready suggestion of an alternative smacks of opportunism. To not consider, at all, the problem that the law was brought in to tackle would be wrong imo.

Completely and utterly disagree. You should be allowed and able to repeal bad laws without any justification or plan beyond "we will no longer have this bad law".

Do I think, separately, there are good reasons for the parties to make efforts to find other ways to tackle sectarianism? Sure. But this should be a totally separate process from and not in any way be considered a contingent part of the repeal of the Act, which should happen immediately and regardless of the wider efforts to eradicate sectarianism.

It is completely consistent to say that bad laws should be repealed because they are an affront to the rule of law and human rights, without having even the slightest smidgeon of an alternative solution, and for it not to be opportunism. Defending fundamental rights is not opportunism. It is the primary goal and duty of every single elected politician.

 

I am not saying that it is necessary or essential to have something before the law is repealed, this is only my preference and what I think - in this instance - would be the best approach.

No, the best approach would be to repeal the Act regardless of what other measures exist to tackle sectarianism. What you are saying is like "Pogba is a bad footballer but I would prefer that before Thistle release him, they fix the drainage at Firhill so the pitch supports free-flowing on-the-deck football". We should be releasing Pogba, who was signed to give us "something different" (i.e. high-balls to a lone striker when the pitch won't support passing football) regardless of whether or not we fix our pitch. It would not be considered foolish or opportunistic to release him without having already installed better drainage. It is a good thing to do in and of itself and should be applauded loudly from every rooftop in Strathclyde.

 

That is not the same as the ideas of "prioritising solving sectarianism" (which is surely impossible) and supporting the repressing of free speech which you are attributing to me. You talk about me as though I'm supporting some fascist state instead of the repealing of a single bad law 😂

Support for a single bad law that violates human rights basically is fascism, IMO.

 

1. In all honesty the hyperbole and over-emotional language that you have used throughout make it nearly impossible to have a sensible discussion about this with you.

2. Not thinking a law should be repealed immediately is "abhorrent", a "creepy" opinion etc is language which is completely out of proportion with this thread

3. and is probably why people consider you an utterly tedious poster who effectively ruins any thread you contribute to.

1. Have a more sensible position then. Be in favour of freedom of speech.

 

2. No it's not. It's the only correct stance anyone can hold.

3. You say that like it's a bad thing. That should be a badge of honour.

[The_Kincardine]

Care to answer kincardine?

 

Come on Kincardine. It's getting fucking silly.

Look, most fans want 'fruity singing' proscribed.  I don't disagree with that - with caveats.

 

The two high profile arrests, though, have been 1. The Whistle fan done for singing 'FTP and FTQ' and 2. The Coatbridge bloke arrested for his Nazi Dug video last week.

 

These two cases alone show what a muddle this act has created.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Completely and utterly disagree. You should be allowed and able to repeal bad laws without any justification or plan beyond "we will no longer have this bad law".

Do I think, separately, there are good reasons for the parties to make efforts to find other ways to tackle sectarianism? Sure. But this should be a totally separate process from and not in any way be considered a contingent part of the repeal of the Act, which should happen immediately and regardless of the wider efforts to eradicate sectarianism.

It is completely consistent to say that bad laws should be repealed because they are an affront to the rule of law and human rights, without having even the slightest smidgeon of an alternative solution, and for it not to be opportunism. Defending fundamental rights is not opportunism. It is the primary goal and duty of every single elected politician.

No, the best approach would be to repeal the Act regardless of what other measures exist to tackle sectarianism. What you are saying is like "Pogba is a bad footballer but I would prefer that before Thistle release him, they fix the drainage at Firhill so the pitch supports free-flowing on-the-deck football". We should be releasing Pogba, who was signed to give us "something different" (i.e. high-balls to a lone striker when the pitch won't support passing football) regardless of whether or not we fix our pitch. It would not be considered foolish or opportunistic to release him without having already installed better drainage. It is a good thing to do in and of itself and should be applauded loudly from every rooftop in Strathclyde.

Support for a single bad law that violates human rights basically is fascism, IMO.

1. Have a more sensible position then. Be in favour of freedom of speech.

2. No it's not. It's the only correct stance anyone can hold.

3. You say that like it's a bad thing. That should be a badge of honour.

Freedom of speech though does not mean freedom from consequences.

People spread hate and then act surprised by the consequences, as if they didn’t know that their actions would have an outcome.

You have a right to believe what you believe.

You even have a right to say what you believe.

But when you do, don’t be surprised by the outcome.

You are free to speak your mind, but not free from the consequences.

If you threaten bodily harm to someone, don’t be surprised if you end up handcuffed.

If you run through the airport yelling, “bomb,†don’t be surprised when you end up on the no-fly list.

Or, Ad one friend put it, you can say what you want but don't be surprised if someone smacks you in the puss afterwards.

Edited May 16, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh