welshbairn Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 6 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: That’s circular logic It’s starting from the presumption that the law is justified and then using that to justify the law. Your heart may be in the right place but you’re really not doing your case any favours Maybe you should leave defending the OFBA to someone with some kind of grasp on critical reasoning. After all it appears that your contributions thus far have been less driven by a desire for meaningful dialectic than a need to let everyone know how much you don’t like Union Jack waving Rangers fans, a reasonable ambition but one which must surely have been fulfilled by now. There is a case against repeal but you should probably accept that you’re not capable of making it. You seem to have morphed into Officer Dibble. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 You seem to have morphed into Officer Dibble. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 38 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said: Then why did you say someone who supported the removal of the Act was condoning the behaviour of people on that march, considering that it wasn't at a football match? I agree that the 'normal' laws are the ones failing here, but that being the case why does it follow that the removal of the Act is the cause of this behaviour? It's sent a clear message both to the knuckle-draggers and the police - this behaviour is acceptable. The knuckle-draggers flex their muscles and the police let them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: There is a case against repeal but you should probably accept that you’re not capable of making it. You don't think paramilitary outfits, sectarian language and imagery and fascist salutes should be criminal behaviour? It's not my logic that's at fault here. Edited March 14, 2018 by Baxter Parp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 52 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: You don't think paramilitary outfits, sectarian language and imagery and fascist salutes should be criminal behaviour? It's not my logic that's at fault here. OK! we get it! you don't like Rangers Fans Nobody is disagreeing with you on that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: OK! we get it! you don't like Rangers Fans No, you don't. I'm not fond of any shade of bigot at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 The OBFA is something that drives me crazy - as I can't arrive on a message board friendly definitive view on it. It is possible to think it's a really poorly conceived and drafted bit of legislation that came about as an attempt to be seen to do something rather than as a considered response to a complex social problem that isn't really related to Football. It's also possible to be implacably opposed to something that would potentially criminalise someone for doing something at the football that wouldn't be the case elsewhere. It's also reasonable to have a "f**k you" reaction to a law that serves to confirm a certain middle-class caricature of football supporters where we're all mad 80's casuals wrecking town centres. On the other hand, it's reasonable to be a bit queasy when you see some of the people who are/will be empowered by the OBFA being flushed down the toilet regardless if it's the correct decision. When you can't escape the feeling that the "enemy" that you've grown up amongst - listening to their sectarian drivel & whataboutery, and suffering their comedy marches, etc - will be laughing at this and feeling that they've won - you question whether we're doing the right thing. You could also feel that a lot of the politicians and campaigners are doing it for self-serving and cynical reasons - and are focussed on giving the SNP a kick in the baws or ingratiating themselves with the OF supports rather than any real reason of principle. Lastly - you can't help feel that if the police and football authorities had just done their fucking job over a period of decades instead of craven appeasment, we wouldn't be at this point at all. My head hurts. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 15 hours ago, Crùbag said: Though, we're also told that 'other laws are sufficient' and they didn't stop it either. They didn't before the OBFA and won't now. Though.. we're also told that football fans are 'oppressed' and that such behaviour is legitimate 'working class expression' so any laws will be opposed presumably. What's it to be? The only alternative I've read, from the Greens, is Strict Liability. I'd support that as well as some kind of OBFA but how will SL be used to counter behaviour outside and away from the grounds, like we see above? Plus, there's no way the Old Firm would allow that. Vested interests... One counterintuitive idea I've had is to introduce some weaker penalties As has already been established, the worst excesses of individual bad behaviour at or around football matches are covered by previously existing offences. The problem that's more specific to football is people behaving quite badly but en masse in large numbers Trying to do this using the OBFA or indeed the previously existing legislation isn't so much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut but attempting to work you way through a big bag of nuts one at a time with a sledgehammer. If the people of Scotland want their lawmakers to stop people singing "The Boys of the old Brigade" (Terrorism), "The Sash"(Orangery) or indeed "Sunshine on Leith"(Maudlin and dreary) at football games then it's clearly impractical to ask public servants to drag thousands of offenders through the criminal justice system. However if the law allowed violations to be dealt with similarly to parking violations through fixed penalty notices with an appeal board the police could book enough people to have a deterrent effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 21 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: parking violations through fixed penalty notices with an appeal board the police could book enough people to have a deterrent effect. That'll work in the same way that nobody parks illegally anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Just now, Baxter Parp said: That'll work in the same way that nobody parks illegally anymore. About as well as the current football act then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 16 minutes ago, Randy Giles said: About as well as the current football act then. Gosh, the mere threat of repeal has seen an outbreak of lawlessness and bigotry not seen since, well, before the act. What makes you say it's not effective? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Gosh, the mere threat of repeal has seen an outbreak of lawlessness and bigotry not seen since, well, before the act. What makes you say it's not effective? Were marches like the one on Sunday common place before OBAF was a thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONeils40yarder Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Is there any evidence that this 'march' was anything other than silly wee dicks, making lots of noise and being as bigotted as they usually are? I'm not sure what all the fuss is about to be honest... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, ONeils40yarder said: Is there any evidence that this 'march' was anything other than silly wee dicks, making lots of noise and being as bigotted as they usually are? I'm not sure what all the fuss is about to be honest... Mostly a bunch of daft wee boys who are caught up in the growing "Ultras" scene who were trying to be edgy and provocative, emboldened by the thought that their team had a half chance of actually winning a big game for a change. The nazi salutes and the anti catholic bile should have seen a few of them lifted but the police done nothing. OBAF is still in place so quite how that offered encouragement I don't know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Gosh, the mere threat of repeal has seen an outbreak of lawlessness and bigotry not seen since, well, before the act. I sincerely hope that you're at it here, but given your idiotic past, I doubt it. As for how effective it is, I'd suggest you go back and watch the OF going away from home and see how much changed. Before the act, the OF grounds already seen much less of the bigoted shite, and when they went away from home, there was a lot more of it. When the act was brought in, up to the point of the attempt of repealing it, there's been the exact same thing going on. This hasn't changed. Nor has it changed after said repeal attempt. The march doesn't have to be covered by a football act, as you must know. Since that seems to be the hill you're determined to die on though, purely because of the party who's so determined to back the bill, then I don't expect you to admit that. Before the act, during the act, and after the threat of repeal, we've seen the same bigotry all the way since then. I'd say Edited March 14, 2018 by Randy Giles 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ross. said: Mostly a bunch of daft wee boys who are caught up in the growing "Ultras" scene who were trying to be edgy and provocative, emboldened by the thought that their team had a half chance of actually winning a big game for a change. The nazi salutes and the anti catholic bile should have seen a few of them lifted but the police done nothing. OBAF is still in place so quite how that offered encouragement I don't know. Again, it's the Offensive Behaviour at Football act, not the Offensive Behaviour of Football Fans act. The "normal" laws should have applied not the OBAF. The fact is that the "daft wee boys" are anticipating the repeal of the OBAF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Again, it's the Offensive Behaviour at Football act, not the Offensive Behaviour of Football Fans act. The "normal" laws should have applied not the OBAF. The fact is that the "daft wee boys" are anticipating the repeal of the OBAF. You are being disingenuous in the extreme. You know fine well that the act could easily have been applied. (2)For the purposes of section 1(1), a person’s behaviour is in relation to a regulated football match if–– (a)it occurs— (i)in the ground where the regulated football match is being held on the day on which it is being held, (ii)while the person is entering or leaving (or trying to enter or leave) the ground where the regulated football match is being held, or (iii)on a journey to or from the regulated football match, or (b)it is directed towards, or is engaged in together with, another person who is— (i)in the ground where the regulated football match is being held on the day on which it is being held, (ii)entering or leaving (or trying to enter or leave) the ground where the regulated football match is being held, or (iii)on a journey to or from the regulated football match. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/1/section/2/enacted Edited March 14, 2018 by Ross. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 10 minutes ago, Randy Giles said: I sincerely hope that you're at it here, but given your idiotic past, I doubt it. That's the way to have a civilised conversation, eh? 11 minutes ago, Randy Giles said: Before the act, the OF grounds already seen much less of the bigoted shite, and when they went away from home, there was a lot more of it. Shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Ross. said: You are being disingenuous in the extreme. You know fine well that the act could easily have been applied. Why weren't they dispersed then? Why wasn't anyone lifted? Why was nothing done? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Just now, Baxter Parp said: Why weren't they dispersed then? Why wasn't anyone lifted? Why was nothing done? You should probably direct that question to the police. 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.