Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Baxter Parp]

The visceral angle in the present day is mainly about identity politics. Rangers supporters are British/Unionist and Celtic supporters are Irish/Republican in their outlooks at least in stereotypical terms. The religious angle really isn't there any more. When was the last time you heard Rangers supporters sing something like, "there will be no holy water in the Cup"? The jibe that was directed at Alan Stubbs at the Cup Final is the name of a forerunner of the IRA and has no obvious religious angle.

Yes, the Irish Republican movement has no obvious religious angle.

 

Do you read this pish before you post it or what?

[Thumper]

When was the last time you heard Rangers supporters sing something like, "there will be no holy water in the Cup"?

 

This may not be something a random kid in the street would say, but there is absolutely still a core of the support (particularly the away support) that still speaks in starkly religious terms as if it was 1632. Which of course is precisely the part of the support that this legislation is intended to, if not destroy, then at least contain and ostracise.

 

The average age of an Orangeman may be increasing by one every year, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Thumper

[Sergeant Wilson]

When was the last time you heard Rangers supporters sing something like, "there will be no holy water in the Cup"?

I don't know, but I'll not be able to get it out of my head for days now.

[Jacksgranda]

Hopefully theyll renounce the very audible sectarian hate singing from a large number of the supporters in the stadium too, fingers crossed.

 

As long as that's all you cross...

Edited May 26, 2016 by Jacksgranda

[LongTimeLurker]

Anyroads, Labour's and Donald Gorrie's cynical games didn't work. The west of Scotland is now the SNP's main electoral stronghold. The LOL know how to make a lot of noise but are largely irrelevant and are difficult to take seriously. Many football supporters act in a boorish and crass manner in Scotland as they do elsewhere around the world. BoTP legislation could be used to handle that if it were applied sensibly. There is no real need for anything extra in legislation terms.

[Shades75]

That presupposes that they will deal with cases starting with the most criminal

Maybe so, but if that's the worst they can find, even at this early stage then I think we can relatively safely file this one away as "much ado about nothing".

[Thumper]

BoTP legislation could be used to handle that if it were applied sensibly. There is no real need for anything extra in legislation terms.

 

Yes, let's magically make one of Scots law's most infamously fungible crimes perfectly applied to the population, especially in football stadia where polis are outnumbered a hundred to one. This is plainly a practical approach.

[LongTimeLurker]

Had to look up fungible and its not clear to me that you are using it correctly. BoTP carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if it is tried at a high enough court and revolves around, "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community." All the legal levers required to clamp down hard on singing songs like the Billy Boys or pro-IRA stuff were already there. Jack McConnell didn't need to pass new legislation to tackle that and neither did Kenny MacAskill.

[Thumper]

BoTP carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment

 

And its minimum penalty? BoTP in Scots law is catch-all, prosecuted on a literally daily basis. This is handy for a number of reasons, but it means an enormous burden is placed on every component of the legal process to evaluate it. In theory this is perfect, because humans are perfectly rational and infallible actors. In practice it means there's no way it can be used to enforce any sort of widescale social change.

 

This is exactly why conferences etc are finding that a code of conduct which just says "don't be dicks to one another" doesn't work. If you don't enumerate unacceptable behaviours then you're never going to be able to steer the social conscience into avoiding them.

 

Had to look up fungible and its not clear to me that you are using it correctly.

 

I was and I wasn't. It is literally fungible in that it's infamously used as a substitute prosecution: if the polis want to nick someone for something, BoTP is always there. But I also meant it in the sense that it's ridiculously elastic in terms of its own scope, for the same reason.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Thumper

[LongTimeLurker]

For many decades a blind eye was turned to BoTP type behaviour in a football context, so behaviour patterns built up that should not have been tolerated. The pull a few people out at random argument on 10,000 people singing the Billy Boys or a pro-PIRA chant or "you're going to get your ****ing heads kicked in" would work just as easily with BoTP as it would with either McConnell or McAskill's legislation.

[Thumper]

The pull a few people out at random argument on 10,000 people singing the Billy Boys or a pro-PIRA chant or "you're going to get your ****ing heads kicked in" would work just as easily with BoTP as it would with either McConnell or McAskill's legislation.

 

This is bound to be successful when the most rich and powerful football club in the country literally trades on alleged inconsistencies in the handling of the law, and their new partner literally controls the second most popular newspaper in the country's front page.

[LongTimeLurker]

McConnell's legislation ultimately descended into farce when sectarian aggravation was applied to the Hearts fan that tried to attack Neil Lennon, because he subsequently turned out to be from a Roman Catholic background. Guess what they did manage to nail him on complete with an eight month sentence:

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-1081782#6Rhzkl5zmltXC7zr.97

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Maybe so, but if that's the worst they can find, even at this early stage then I think we can relatively safely file this one away as "much ado about nothing".

 

That's the same flawed logic restated

There's likely to be a lot of people who are currently unidentified but will eventually be charged. It would also make more sense to deal with the easiest cases as opposed to the most serious ones as this will give prosecutors more time to prepare a case. Remember that John Wilson was held for months before trial.

 

I don't claim to be privy to how these decisions are made but it's clear that the first two cases shouldn't make us feel that we can draw any "relatively safe" conclusions.

Edited May 26, 2016 by topcat(The most tip top)

[lichtgilphead]

Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of the 1st and 3rd. Nor is any of it inconsistent with the notion that the Police deliberately choose between certain charges or make representations to the Fiscal in relation to the choice between one charge or another regularly.

You are not often going to see prosecutions abandoned over a disagreement about whether to push for one charge or another when the two charges are sufficiently similar that the accused is probably guilty of both.

 

Hmm. Who should I believe? 

 

1)  The Procurator Fiscal who specifically told me that he wouldn't proceed with a prosecution unless the submitted draft charges were changed to an offence under a completely different (and to my mind inappropriate) act?

 

2) A student who posts on a football forum who has previously admitted that he has had little experience in real-life criminal prosecution?

 

It's a real conundrum.

[Ad Lib]

Hmm. Who should I believe? 

 

1)  The Procurator Fiscal who specifically told me that he wouldn't proceed with a prosecution unless the submitted draft charges were changed to an offence under a completely different (and to my mind inappropriate) act?

 

2) A student who posts on a football forum who has previously admitted that he has had little experience in real-life criminal prosecution?

 

It's a real conundrum.

The latter, obviously. The PF are shills of the fascist state.

[Shades75]

That's the same flawed logic restated

There's likely to be a lot of people who are currently unidentified but will eventually be charged. It would also make more sense to deal with the easiest cases as opposed to the most serious ones as this will give prosecutors more time to prepare a case. Remember that John Wilson was held for months before trial.

I don't claim to be privy to how these decisions are made but it's clear that the first two cases shouldn't make us feel that we can draw any "relatively safe" conclusions.

If we consider that the evidence that has came to light so far, on any of the allegations, is patchy at best and non-existant at worse, then I do think it highly unlikely that any substantial and serious charges are brought against anyone.

I haven't heard a decent, objective eye-witness account or any mobile phone/cctv footage. In a stadium of thousands, there would be and was a number of people videoing events. I've seen a fresh air swipe at Lee Wallace and a man lifting a child. There are plenty with shots of songs being sung, a few pavement dancers and a lot of people running about.

There will be a whole host of misdemeanors and that will be it.

[Thumper]

McConnell's legislation ultimately descended into farce when sectarian aggravation was applied to the Hearts fan that tried to attack Neil Lennon, because he subsequently turned out to be from a Roman Catholic background. Guess what they did manage to nail him on complete with an eight month sentence:

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hearts-fan-cleared-of-sectarian-attack-1081782#6Rhzkl5zmltXC7zr.97

 

Are you not supposedly defending the idea that BotP is sufficient here? It was BotP he was convicted of!

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Are you not supposedly defending the idea that BotP is sufficient here? It was BotP he was convicted of!

I think his point is that BoTP turned out to be sufficient anyway.

Mind you they had spent 3 months working on that case

[LongTimeLurker]

Are you not supposedly defending the idea that BotP is sufficient here? It was BotP he was convicted of!

 

Right and that's my point. The BoTP legislation was more than sufficient to get the job done. There was no need to get a jury to speculate over his motivation for using certain naughty words to give him a custodial sentence, because the BoTP legislation gives the court all the discretion it needs on sentencing to take the circumstances into account if the case is tried at a high enough level. All the posturing by the various political parties on this issue over the last decade has been a complete waste of time and is all about grabbing headlines and appealing to certain coveted swing demographics within the electorate. Holyrood could more usefully use its time trying to do something innovative like creating a more positive environment for inward investment, but that doesn't push people's buttons on a visceral level, so politicians will no doubt continue to play their games.

[strichener]

Right and that's my point. The BoTP legislation was more than sufficient to get the job done. There was no need to get a jury to speculate over his motivation for using certain naughty words to give him a custodial sentence, because the BoTP legislation gives the court all the discretion it needs on sentencing to take the circumstances into account if the case is tried at a high enough level. All the posturing by the various political parties on this issue over the last decade has been a complete waste of time and is all about grabbing headlines and appealing to certain coveted swing demographics within the electorate. Holyrood could more usefully use its time trying to do something innovative like creating a more positive environment for inward investment, but that doesn't push people's buttons on a visceral level, so politicians will no doubt continue to play their games.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/business/markets-economy/scotland-achieves-record-year-for-inward-investment-1-4136234

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-33508453

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27747527