Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[HaikuHibee]

This is a relevant point. The decision to go into a crowd singing sectarian songs and lifting one or more miscreants is not down to individual officers. The failure to effect such a strategy is taken at command level.

However the lack of accountability of the police in this country goes well beyond this issue.

The strategy would have to be very clear, especially if you try and roll all this up in BOTP. In essence you would be providing a set of rules by which BOTP would be permissable within a football context (e.g., you may call the referee a fat w**k if and only if...) Edited May 29, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[LongTimeLurker]

Goodness gracious me we can't have non-Rangers supporters being charged on this sort of basis. This is supposed to be aimed at Big Rab fae Whitburn or that shite flinging dude fae Bo'ness not Farquhar the genteel latte drinking Partick Thistle fan from Bearsden. Here's something to ponder for those who want to bring a modern PC agenda into football, but only selectively and carefully targetted at the supporters of clubs they intensely dislike. Why should anyone ever have to put up with having "fat w**k" screamed at them aggressively in their workplace? This again is behaviour that has long been tolerated, but there is really no obvious reason why it ever should have been beyond the practicality of clogging up the courts with hundreds of cases of this type every weekend. If you are doing that regularly give your head a shake and try refereeing a game yourself if you think its easy to make split second decisions.

[Ad Lib]

There is a difference between what normally happens and what legally could happen. The theoretical maximum for BoTP is life in prison even if it is seldom if ever applied. Even a mention of a five year custodial sentence as the ceiling shows there is more than enough leeway for using this legislation to deal with the singing of naughty songs at a football game in a sledgehammer to a peanut sort of way and that it can't sensibly be viewed as a trivial charge that needed to be replaced with something new to make the legal system more stringent. Jack McConnell and Donald Gorrie had an identity politics agenda when they decided to play around with sectarian aggravations. They wanted to be seen to be protecting a certain group from another group in the hope that the former group would vote for them rather than the SNP.

Look, I oppose the 2012 Act, pretty much in its entirety, but you are so full of shit here.

Sheriff Courts cannot impose a custodial sentence greater than 5 years. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a single High Court case, involving breach of the peace as the most serious of charges on a charge sheet. Even if a breach of the peace charge were to be determined in the High Court, the relevant bench would sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines and in essentially zero circumstances would they prescribe even a long custodial sentence, let alone a life tariff. Any decision to impose a life tariff for a BOTP conviction would be liable to challenge through the domestic courts under the Human Rights Act, would be amenable to review as a devolution issue under the Scotland Act for violating the ECHR, and would ultimately be able to be declared illegal by the Strasbourg Court, for being flagrantly disproportionate in its interference with fundamental rights well in excess of a contracting party's margin of appreciation.

That's not an "in practice" limitation; that's a legal one.

[LongTimeLurker]

The only point I have made is that theoretically the maximum is life. Nothing you just wrote contradicted that or my basic point that BoTP can be treated as a serious offence if tried at a high enough court, so there was no need to come up with anything new to clobber people for singing a song. I would have thought that anyone suggesting even pushing things as far as 5 years for singing the Billy Boys or a pro-PIRA song should be sectioned, so the levers are there to give the court all the discretion they need on sentencing.

[Ad Lib]

The only point I have made is that theoretically the maximum is life. Nothing you just wrote contradicted that or my basic point that BoTP can be treated as a serious offence if tried at a high enough court

No, the Human Rights Act and devolution issue obstacles very clearly set a legal impediment to even the most theoretical of arguments that BOTP can lawfully attract a life sentence even if handed down by the High Court of Justiciary. It would be theoretically impossible.

Im pretty sure i recall an incident when i was at school whereby someone sent a variety of packages through the post claiming they were anthrax, he was tried in the high court at Edinburgh and had he not plead a life sentence was on the cards. Also a sheriff could hear the case and refer to the high court for sentencing.

Several issues.

1. Thats considerably more serious than breach of the peace.

2. BOTP is now regarded as requiring publicity.

3. You were at school at the very least long before BOTP's reach was constrained by the creation of alternative, more suitable statutory offences like s38, and probably (though I admit I'm guessing here and may be wrong) before the Human Rights Act started to bite on the breadth of BOTP.

4. There's at least an arguable case that this would constitute assault, a more serious offence than BOTP, as an admittedly remote attack on a person intending to cause fear or alarm. If such an action took place in England, for example, they would be proscecute under s1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. The greater seriousness of that is consistent with what I said earlier that a life sentence would only be sought where BOTP was not the most serious accusation on the charge sheet.

[HaikuHibee]

Goodness gracious me we can't have non-Rangers supporters being charged on this sort of basis. This is supposed to be aimed at Big Rab fae Whitburn or that shite flinging dude fae Bo'ness not Farquhar the genteel latte drinking Partick Thistle fan from Bearsden. Here's something to ponder for those who want to bring a modern PC agenda into football, but only selectively and carefully targetted at the supporters of clubs they intensely dislike. Why should anyone ever have to put up with having "fat w**k" screamed at them aggressively in their workplace? This again is behaviour that has long been tolerated, but there is really no obvious reason why it ever should have been beyond the practicality of clogging up the courts with hundreds of cases of this type every weekend. If you are doing that regularly give your head a shake and try refereeing a game yourself if you think its easy to make split second decisions.

I guess in football we do consider it socially acceptable to shout abuse as long as it is not discriminatory. So I can call you a w**k but not a Protestant w**k.

[LongTimeLurker]

Neither is acceptable in civilised society and this basically just highlights the hypocrisy that is involved in a lot of this stuff in a football context. People see political correctness as a useful weapon in identity politics terms, but have not internalised its values. Incidentally, in case you want to be abusive towards me again in this childish school playground sort of way no sectarian label is applicable in my case. I am an atheist.

[Baxter Parp]

 

Thankfully, sectarianism is a thing of the past though, right?

[mjw]

Thankfully, sectarianism is a thing of the past though, right?

Fred Dibnah says no surrender!

[LongTimeLurker]

What is the sectarian angle that you see in that picture? If some brain dead moron with a spray can painted "F**K UKIP" "Scotland Forever" it would be an act of vandalism broadly similar to that shown above. What has been questioned in this thread is the relevance of trying to use terminology related to a dispute between the adherents of rival churches in the modern secular environment where almost nobody goes to church any more. The attempt to introduce that into legislation applied to modern Scottish society led to absurd scenarios like the attempt to convict somebody from a nominally RC background like the Hearts fan that attacked Neil Lennon based on having a sectarian motivation resulting in a highly embarrassing not proven verdict, and East Stirling fans (think anyway?) getting lifted for singing "you only sing in the chapel" at Cliftonhill. 

[HaikuHibee]

Neither is acceptable in civilised society and this basically just highlights the hypocrisy that is involved in a lot of this stuff in a football context. People see political correctness as a useful weapon in identity politics terms, but have not internalised its values. Incidentally, in case you want to be abusive towards me again in this childish school playground sort of way no sectarian label is applicable in my case. I am an atheist.

I suppose it is severity. Racism and bigotry is much more damaging than moaning. I take the point. But I think the history and violence around racist and bigoted comments will always make it more serious than references to the mastubatory history of football officials. In the playground I'm certain "nigger" would carry a larger penalty than "w****r". Depending on who the child called a w****r and why, I am not sure how serious it would be taken.

Edited May 30, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[topcat(The most tip top)]

 

Thankfully, sectarianism is a thing of the past though, right?

 

 

Of all the colours of spray paint available, They chose Green?

 

[Granny Danger]

 

Thankfully, sectarianism is a thing of the past though, right?

It's a bit thick to do that then get your photo taken next to it.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Thankfully, sectarianism is a thing of the past though, right?

You do know that's not in Scotland right?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Yellow.

What is wrong with your eyesight?

[LongTimeLurker]

That first sentence is right at the heart of the igorance displayed by OF supporters who simply have no idea of what is going on.

 

OK then enlighten me. I'll ask the question again. What is the sectarian angle that you see in that picture? It's clearly an act of vandalism motivated by identity politics and something that makes the perpetrator liable for prosection and criminal damages, but where is the religious angle that makes it any different from a slogan like "F**K the Tories - Scotland Forever" in a Scottish context? The whole problem with attempting to use a term like sectarianism in legislation is that its meaning is nothing like as clearly defined as racism and homophobia, which ultimately leads to farcical scenarios like the John Wilson not proven verdict where BoTP legislation had to be used instead to get a conviction.

[Baxter Parp]

What is the sectarian angle that you see in that picture? If some brain dead moron with a spray can painted "F**K UKIP" "Scotland Forever" it would be an act of vandalism broadly similar to that shown above. What has been questioned in this thread is the relevance of trying to use terminology related to a dispute between the adherents of rival churches in the modern secular environment where almost nobody goes to church any more. The attempt to introduce that into legislation applied to modern Scottish society led to absurd scenarios like the attempt to convict somebody from a nominally RC background like the Hearts fan that attacked Neil Lennon based on having a sectarian motivation resulting in a highly embarrassing not proven verdict, and East Stirling fans (think anyway?) getting lifted for singing "you only sing in the chapel" at Cliftonhill. 

So, to you, because the act was used in an inappropriate way twice, it's a complete failure?

[LongTimeLurker]

I have already explained ad nauseam why I think it was superfluous given BoTP was already in place. The SNP came up with the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act to replace Jack McConnell's sectarian aggravation approach in a football context. You do realise I was mainly criticising Labour and the Lib Dem's earlier approach with those examples?

Edited May 31, 2016 by LongTimeLurker

[HaikuHibee]

I have already explained ad nauseam why I think it was superfluous given BoTP was already in place. The SNP came up with the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act to replace Jack McConnell's sectarian aggravation approach in a football context. You do realise I was mainly criticising Labour and the Lib Dem's earlier approach with those examples?

Considering the only person thinks BOTP could work is an unemployed Pie & Bovril poster, and Lib Dem Candidate, I can't see that view gaining much traction outside of the Orange Lodge/Tories and a handful of angry Celtic fans.

[Baxter Parp]

I have already explained ad nauseam why I think it was superfluous given BoTP was already in place.

I have already pointed out that BoTP wasn't used.  Why would it be used now?  What's changed?