Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[jagfox]

Can we now get back to calling the ****, **** and the ****, **** then?

 

[WeeMentalDavie]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

Breach of the peace aggravated by religious and racial prejudice - 1 v OBFA - 800-odds.

Some game.

I'm not going to trawl the internet for statistics to prove my point. People were convicted for sectarianism before OBFA. You said you didn't remember it happening, it did.

Of the 800 odd convicted under OBFA, I'd be interested to see how many were for actual bigotry/sectarianism as opposed to 'offending' a police officer who I'm sure witnesses much worse on their shift elsewhere on a weekend

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, WeeMentalDavie said:

I'm not going to trawl the internet

You already have.

[Ross.]

42 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

That article is from a bit less than a month before the repeal bill was lodged. Even so, the motivation for asking for amendments is utterly irrelevant while the lack of proposals by the Act's opponents is telling.  Those backing repeal do not want to help amend or improve the act.

The motivation is entirely relevant. It was a face saving effort from a group who were too pig headed to admit publicly what many have admitted privately, the act is/was not fit for purpose.

33 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Because it was so effective that sectarianism and bigotry were eliminated from football grounds and everybody lived in peace, harmony and brotherhood?

1) OBAF has not done that. If anything I would say that what is widely held in Scottish football as sectarianism and bigotry have been on the increase since the act was brought in.

2) If you think the issue is entirely confined to football grounds, the whole discussion is pointless.

3) The act is/was so vague that it could target anyone at a football match for just about anything if someone found it offensive.

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, Ross. said:

The motivation is entirely relevant. It was a face saving effort from a group who were too pig headed to admit publicly what many have admitted privately, the act is/was not fit for purpose.

You're saying no amendments or suggestions were put forward by the act's opponents because of this?

[Ross.]

5 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

You're saying no amendments or suggestions were put forward by the act's opponents because of this?

I'm saying the SNP only suggested amendments when it was clear there was going to be a concerted effort to have the act repealed. They showed no appetite to amend it before hand. The suggestions were an attempt at face saving. They could have saved a lot of debate and embarrassment by simply suggesting amendments before Kelly and others started discussing repeal. Certainly there were/are SNP members who believed that would happen pretty much as soon as the act was brought in, as they knew it was a horrendous piece of legislation from the start. Others with more influence decided it should stay as it was and that was pretty much the end of the conversation until the repeal movement sprung up.

ETA: Politically the opposition to it was clearly more to do with opportunism than any real care for the people who have to put up with it, but that opportunism was gifted to them by the SNP.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Ross.

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I'm saying the SNP only suggested amendments when it was clear there was going to be a concerted effort to have the act repealed. They showed no appetite to amend it before hand. The suggestions were an attempt at face saving. They could have saved a lot of debate and embarrassment by simply suggesting amendments before Kelly and others started discussing repeal. Certainly there were/are SNP members who believed that would happen pretty much as soon as the act was brought in, as they knew it was a horrendous piece of legislation from the start. Others with more influence decided it should stay as it was and that was pretty much the end of the conversation until the repeal movement sprung up.

So why were no amendments suggested by it's opponents?

Edit: If you're having problems figuring it out it's because they only ever wanted the act repealed and had no intention of improving or amending it.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Baxter Parp

[Ira Gaines]

To be fair to Baxter Parp here, the opponents should have tried to come together to find a way to improve the bill. But with so many things in politics, it's all or nothing. Which ends up leaving it to the SNP to do. In an ideal world, we'd have seen a better opposition to it.

[WeeMentalDavie]

24 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

You already have.

It helps to include the full sentence that I posted when quoting me

[Ross.]

14 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

So why were no amendments suggested by it's opponents?

Edit: If you're having problems figuring it out it's because they only ever wanted the act repealed and had no intention of improving or amending it.

I've already stated the reason why they did not table amendments. They weren't interested in doing anything but turning it into a political football. They sensed a chance to give the SNP a slap and that is what they have done.

13 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

To be fair to Baxter Parp here, the opponents should have tried to come together to find a way to improve the bill. But with so many things in politics, it's all or nothing. Which ends up leaving it to the SNP to do. In an ideal world, we'd have seen a better opposition to it.

Effective government would have solved the issue before the opposition got a chance to do what they have done. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs, the SNP fucked this one up. As an SNP member it pisses me off that so many are too short sighted or too pig headed to just admit that mistakes were made. Instead it has descended into a he said/she said round of you're a bigot, no you're a bigot, which gets everyone precisely nowhere.

[welshbairn]

17 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I'm saying the SNP only suggested amendments when it was clear there was going to be a concerted effort to have the act repealed. They showed no appetite to amend it before hand. The suggestions were an attempt at face saving. They could have saved a lot of debate and embarrassment by simply suggesting amendments before Kelly and others started discussing repeal. Certainly there were/are SNP members who believed that would happen pretty much as soon as the act was brought in, as they knew it was a horrendous piece of legislation from the start. Others with more influence decided it should stay as it was and that was pretty much the end of the conversation until the repeal movement sprung up.

ETA: Politically the opposition to it was clearly more to do with opportunism than any real care for the people who have to put up with it, but that opportunism was gifted to them by the SNP.

That's where Scotland misses a 2nd chamber for scrutinising bills and ironing out flaws. The committees whose job that is have the same inbuilt party majorities and the same MSP's that proposed the legislation. Some neutral body of experienced legal people might be worth a go, if advisory only but published recommendations.

[Brother Blades]

I love the fact that I’m offended by sectarian songs, but really feel the need to defend my oppressors, just so I can defend my own actions, we hate & love each other in an almost miraculous equal amounts.

FTFY

[Brother Blades]

Just to make my views clear, I was uncomfortable with the legislation as it seemed to target one section of society (football fans), as opposed to any other social or sporting events, I don’t think it was a particularly well written piece of legislation, however, since the repeal vote, the real celebrations seem to be coming from the exact people it was targeting. Which probably indicates it was worth having as part of our legal code.

[Baxter Parp]

17 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I've already stated the reason why they did not table amendments. They weren't interested in doing anything but turning it into a political football. They sensed a chance to give the SNP a slap and that is what they have done.

They've given a signal to every slavering yahoo in Scotland too, don't forget.

[WhaleOilBeefHucked]

Also from the same other forum.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, munro76 said:

Also from the same other forum.

 

About half of Hibs numbers and a fair whack of the Rangers ones are from the 2016 cup final

And given that a larger than usual proportion of Hamilton's home attendances are visiting supporters that ratio is probably a  litle deceptive

Nonetheless the argument that this act was all about dealing with sectarian bigotry and the old firm does seem  disingenous.

Edited January 26, 2018 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Ross.]

15 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

They've given a signal to every slavering yahoo in Scotland too, don't forget.

Undoubtedly, but it could all have been easily avoided if the act itself had been given more than a cursory once over before being put in place, or if it had been amended proactively by the SNP after it was put in place, which is something that some within the party wanted to do but were ignored on.

[Ross.]

12 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Nonetheless the argument that this act was all about dealing with sectarian bigotry and the old firm does seem  disingenous.

Christine Grahame's words were along the lines of "Something has to be done to even things up", suggesting she felt Celtic fans and their republican song book were getting an easy ride compared to Rangers fans and their anti-catholic song book. It was never about dealing with the actual issues, just ensuring both were seen as bad as each other in the eyes of the law.

She may have been right(I'm not offering an opinion on that particular angle either way), but the approach taken was ridiculous.

[Baxter Parp]

2 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Undoubtedly, but it could all have been easily avoided if the act itself had been given more than a cursory once over before being put in place, or if it had been amended proactively by the SNP after it was put in place, which is something that some within the party wanted to do but were ignored on.

The SNP called for compromise and suggestions in 2016 and were ignored.  You can't go pointing the finger at them when it's the opposition that have put us in this place.

[Paco]

Big fan of this.