LongTimeLurker Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) Sorry I don't think either of you understand what was being debated over the last few pages and why, and I don't have time to patiently walk you through it. To try to send this back to the original subject matter here is an interesting critique of the SNP's legislation (think it's by Ad Lib, but not 100% sure): http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2016/05/politicised-policing-in-scotland.html ...The Act does not stop there in terms of what we should principally object to. Even if its advocates are right and this expression is something we should criminalise, why does it only apply to football fans? The mere fact that football fans are more likely to engage in this conduct than the general population does not justify a law that specifically and only targets them. If the conduct is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of whether it takes place on the terraces or anywhere else. This creates some absurd consequences. Imagine that I am on the Subway to Kelvinbridge, en-route to Firhill. I am "on a journey to" a regulated football match, so the Act applies to me. Imagine I meet a friend, who is a Thistle fan but is instead going into town. If we were to sing "Hello Hello" together, but the carriage is empty, I am committing a criminal offence and he is not. We may be arseholes for singing in an enclosed public place, but that isn't a justification for criminalising me but not him. In a similar vein, it purports to criminalise Scottish resident football fans for actions undertaken when they attend football matches not even taking place in this country. If by some freak of magic Partick Thistle qualify for Europe and we draw Honved in the UEFA Cup, I might take a bus down to London and then fly out to Budapest for the away leg. I may be joined by a "Thistle Nomad" who lives in England, and we might board the same flight to Hungary. If we sing "Hello Hello" together on the plane, or at the football game, I have committed a criminal offence but he has not. And not a criminal offence pertinent to Hungary, but pertinent to Scotland! The powers arrogated by this Act are simultaneously extraordinary yet also inconsistent... Edited May 31, 2016 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Sorry I don't think either of you understand what was being debated over the last few pages and why, and I don't have time to patiently walk you through it. To try to send this back to the original subject matter here is an interesting critique of the SNP's legislation (think it's by Ad Lib, but not 100% sure): http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2016/05/politicised-policing-in-scotland.html ...The Act does not stop there in terms of what we should principally object to. Even if its advocates are right and this expression is something we should criminalise, why does it only apply to football fans? The mere fact that football fans are more likely to engage in this conduct than the general population does not justify a law that specifically and only targets them. If the conduct is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of whether it takes place on the terraces or anywhere else. This creates some absurd consequences. Imagine that I am on the Subway to Kelvinbridge, en-route to Firhill. I am "on a journey to" a regulated football match, so the Act applies to me. Imagine I meet a friend, who is a Thistle fan but is instead going into town. If we were to sing "Hello Hello" together, but the carriage is empty, I am committing a criminal offence and he is not. We may be arseholes for singing in an enclosed public place, but that isn't a justification for criminalising me but not him. In a similar vein, it purports to criminalise Scottish resident football fans for actions undertaken when they attend football matches not even taking place in this country. If by some freak of magic Partick Thistle qualify for Europe and we draw Honved in the UEFA Cup, I might take a bus down to London and then fly out to Budapest for the away leg. I may be joined by a "Thistle Nomad" who lives in England, and we might board the same flight to Hungary. If we sing "Hello Hello" together on the plane, or at the football game, I have committed a criminal offence but he has not. And not a criminal offence pertinent to Hungary, but pertinent to Scotland! The powers arrogated by this Act are simultaneously extraordinary yet also inconsistent... Ad Lib's a lying c**t so I don't read his pish. Why not just answer the question I asked? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 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. I am not unemployed. I both am in full time education and have a job: teaching second year law students public law. Get your facts straight before you post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I am not unemployed. I both am in full time education and have a job: teaching second year law students public law. Get your facts straight before you post. It would be handy if we could click on profile pictures and see people's qualifications 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I am not unemployed. I both am in full time education and have a job: teaching second year law students public law. Get your facts straight before you post. How come every thread I see you post on gets reduced to a conversation about you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 How come every thread I see you post on gets reduced to a conversation about you? I don't know. You should probably ask the people that bring up, make false statements about, or question: 1. My political affiliations 2. My employment status 3. My academic credentials 4. My eyesight 5. My mental health 6. My ability to get laid The fact that others seem so utterly obsessed with these categories of ad hominem attack, in my experience, is reflective of the lack of a substantive argument they have against the things I say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I don't know. You should probably ask the people that bring up, make false statements about, or question: 1. My political affiliations 2. My employment status 3. My academic credentials 4. My eyesight 5. My mental health 6. My ability to get laid The fact that others seem so utterly obsessed with these categories of ad hominem attack, in my experience, is reflective of the lack of a substantive argument they have against the things I say. Thanks. So you still don't get your Nat King? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Thanks. So you still don't get your Nat King? Like I said, it's for others to make the false statements 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I have never heard a single person say you could get laid, where's the false statement? Sorry couldnt resist, despite our recent differences i still enjoy debating just dont get so wound up, its a fucking football forum. Most of the time, I don't get wound up. It's very funny when people think I am though, while they're obviously absolutely seething. So piss off PC Plod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Like I said, it's for others to make the false statements Fair dos - it was a cheap shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 aye honestly its pure original patter that plod stuff Just be grateful you're not Big Ears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I don't know. You should probably ask the people that bring up, make false statements about, or question: 1. My political affiliations 2. My employment status 3. My academic credentials 4. My eyesight 5. My mental health 6. My ability to get laid The fact that others seem so utterly obsessed with these categories of ad hominem attack, in my experience, is reflective of the lack of a substantive argument they have against the things I say. 7. Yer Maw! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I see that Michael Hokey Cokey Matheson is wading in here with his idea that clubs should, maybe, adopt 'strict liability' or something like it. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/justice-secretary-michael-matheson-calls-8095835#2QBVEyEkEebGgmVr.97 Is it essential to be an utter buffoon to get a gig with the Nats? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I see that Michael Hokey Cokey Matheson is wading in here with his idea that clubs should, maybe, adopt 'strict liability' or something like it. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/justice-secretary-michael-matheson-calls-8095835#2QBVEyEkEebGgmVr.97 Is it essential to be an utter buffoon to get a gig with the Nats? Pish isn't it? Cheers for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Government interference in football leads to suspensions from FIFA so hopefully he'll be told to STFU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Government interference in football leads to suspensions from FIFA so hopefully he'll be told to STFU. Not when UEFA are finding clubs for the very same behaviour. I also think FIFA will soon be suspending the Swiss and US for their interference in football business!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 The first bit is a non-sequitur. Second bit isn't the government but law enforcement authorities, so not relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 The first bit is a non-sequitur. Second bit isn't the government but law enforcement authorities, so not relevant. I must have missed the part where governments do not make the laws that the police enforce. The Scottish Government have basically stated that the SFA has to get their house on order or they will intervene. This will not involve direct intervention at the SFA (which is what FIFA objects to) but by passing taking action against those that fail to prevent the law breaking at events that they organise. This is what has already happened at licenced events where a single person is responsible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Another non-sequitur to kick things off. If the Scottish government directly interferes in how the sport governs itself then there is a real danger of being suspended from FIFA. How the police and courts deal with people breaking laws is a separate issue from Mr Hokey Cokey trying to directly dictate how the SFA and SPFL apply sanctions against their member clubs for stuff that happens off the field. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 Another non-sequitur to kick things off. If the Scottish government directly interferes in how the sport governs itself then there is a real danger of being suspended from FIFA. How the police and courts deal with people breaking laws is a separate issue from Mr Hokey Cokey trying to directly dictate how the SFA and SPFL apply sanctions against their member clubs for stuff that happens off the field. And is that is what is happening here? Can you provide the quote from any government official that states they are going to directly dictate to the SFA outside the normal and already utilised procedures whereby a discussion then takes place and if the SFA still do not act then the Government do. this very thread subject shows what happens when the SFA pay lip service. I assume we are just waiting for UEFA AND FIFA to take action against the SFA for banning alcohol at football, enacting laws that prevent bottles and cans being taken into football grounds exclusively and the offensive behaviour at football. The sport does not govern itself, it is subject to the law of the land like every other organised activity. 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.