Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Savage Henry]

yes they should.

Don't think you've thought that through.

[HaikuHibee]

So, bearing in mind we all heard last season's cup semi-final between green and blue bigots, how has the new law changed anything?

 

Because c***s like you. Blaming the law for this pish, and not the culprits.

[vikingTON]

You're the one claiming that enforcing BOTP is impractical at football matches. How is that impractical, yet police are better equipped to interpret the even looser definitions in the Football Act? 

 

They're not better equipped - many sectarian chants continue to go unpunished. But the specific passed by the Government gives the police a much stronger incentive to take action where they can - including retrospective action and analysis of culprits using CCTV etc. - which simply does not and never has happened using existing BOTP legislation. 

 

I'm also curious about this point. Have Greece been suspended for suspending their league earlier this season due to crowd disorder? Have England been suspended for making standing illegal in the top 2 divisions? Have Scotland been suspended for making alcohol at football illegal? Of course the government could put pressure on the SFA.

 

 

There's a pretty straightforward difference between legislating on football with the support of the footballing authorities involved and refusing to sanction the policing of football matches as an act of government policy. So at least 2/3 of your comparisons are straw men. And of course, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't walk into the HQ of Police Scotland to tell them whether to police public events or not, so the entire premise of your claim in the first place was utter bollocks. 

 

The primary mechanism by which the Scottish government can change the approach of the police on this matter, owing to the lack of co-operation from the football authorities, is by passing legislation to incentivise the police to take action against the culprits while letting football matches take place to the enjoyment of the majority. That you suggest withdrawing police support and essentially cancelling football matches - rather than having a perfectly straightforward addition to the existing law - suggests that your stance has nothing to do with practical policy and everything to do with shrieking about the injustice of a sensibly applied law without suggesting a credible alternative. 

[Ad Lib]

No-one would ban them. That is why there is a law. The SFA? LOL

That's not their problem. State punishment is special. Not justified here.

[Glenconner]

Well that's just bollocks. If Rangers sang "muslim blood", their fans would be banned.

Mate, i'm ashamed as a weegie at what some folks on here are posting.

It's effing embarrassing.

[HaikuHibee]

That's not their problem. State punishment is special. Not justified here.

 

 

I often wonder where they would have been

If we hadn't have taken them in

Fed them and washed them

Thousands in Glasgow alone

From Ireland they came

Brought us nothing but trouble and shame

Well the famine is over

Why don't they go home?

Now Athenry Mike was a thief

And Large John he was fully briefed

And that wee traitor from Castlemilk

Turned his back on his own

They've all their Papists in Rome

They have U2 and Bono

Well the famine is over

Why don't they go home?

INSTRUMENTAL

Now they raped and fondled their kids

That's what those perverts from the darkside did

And they swept it under the carpet

and Large John he hid

Their evils seeds have been sown

Cause they're not of our own

Well the famine is over

Why don't you go home?

Now Timmy don't take it from me

Cause if you know your history

You've persecuted thousands of people

In Ireland alone

You turned on the lights

Fuelled U boats by night

That's how you repay us

It's time to go home.

 

Walking into a pub and shouting "The Irish are child rapists" after a couple bevvys deserves a slap on the wrist unless the barman is a bigot, then it's fine. That's what we are saying?

Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[mjw]

Everybody gets right of access to a solicitor in Scotland. All they do is tell the ned to not comment. but regardless they get the right to it.

Is everyone who gets arrested in Scotland a Ned?

[HaikuHibee]

Ned just used as an interchangable expression for a criminal mate, difference between a scheme ned and a 'ned' in a working term, same way americans say 'perp' etc.

 

It's not 'just' these 'neds'. That is the fucking problem. It's pretty mainstream.

[Ad Lib]

Walking into a pub and shouting "The Irish are child rapists" after a couple bevvys deserves a slap on the wrist unless the barman is a bigot, then it's fine. That's what we are saying?

If you don't like it... don't go into a shit pub. Hibs though. Such minter.

[Glenconner]

Docking points is the answer.

Time for the authorities to grow a pair.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

Docking points is the answer.

Time for the authorities to grow a pair.

Will never happen, the Old Firm own the football authorities in Scotland and they do what the Old Firm tell them to do.

Reagan and Doncaster only got their jobs cause they were hand picked by the Old Firm. They literally own them.

[Glenconner]

 

Will never happen, the Old Firm own the football authorities in Scotland and they do what the Old Firm tell them to do.

Reagan and Doncaster only got their jobs cause they were hand picked by the Old Firm. They literally own them.

Why were Rangers 4 years out the the top division then?

[HaikuHibee]

If you don't like it... don't go into a shit pub. Hibs though. Such minter.

 

the Lib Dems arguing with "if Irish folk don't like our tolerance of far-right anti-Irish racism they should go back to where they came from" in the pursuit of Unionist votes? to avoid state interference in freedom of movement they could encourage the use of 'No Irish' signs outside the selected pubs to avoid confusion.

 

Not sure which is more liberal. increasingly it sounds like that's where the Lib Dems are on this.

Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

There's a pretty straightforward difference between legislating on football with the support of the footballing authorities involved and refusing to sanction the policing of football matches as an act of government policy. So at least 2/3 of your comparisons are straw men. And of course, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't walk into the HQ of Police Scotland to tell them whether to police public events or not, so the entire premise of your claim in the first place was utter bollocks.

 

You claimed a government can't put political pressure on football authorities without drawing the ire of FIFA. The fact is they can and they have taken action in Greece (suspending the league) and in Italy (introducing supporter ID cards) when the governing bodies have been unable to deal with crowd trouble, and neither FA has been suspended or banned to my knowledge.

 

 

The primary mechanism by which the Scottish government can change the approach of the police on this matter, owing to the lack of co-operation from the football authorities, is by passing legislation to incentivise the police to take action against the culprits while letting football matches take place to the enjoyment of the majority. That you suggest withdrawing police support and essentially cancelling football matches - rather than having a perfectly straightforward addition to the existing law - suggests that your stance has nothing to do with practical policy and everything to do with shrieking about the injustice of a sensibly applied law without suggesting a credible alternative. 

 

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. How many arrests were there at/during/after the cup semi-final last season when the entire Rangers end were singing the Billy Boys? You're advocating something that isn't straightforward, isn't sensible and doesn't work.

 

Play games behind closed doors and people will get the message pretty quickly.

[amnarab]

Any truth that the SNP are forcing the SFA to appoint Stephen Thompson as Chief Executive of the SFA and plans on relegating any club singing Billy Boys to the bottom division?

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

the Lib Dems arguing with "if Irish folk don't like our tolerance of far-right anti-Irish racism they should go back to where they came from" in the pursuit of Unionist votes? to avoid state interference in freedom of movement they could encourage the use of 'No Irish' signs outside the selected pubs to avoid confusion.

 

Not sure which is more liberal. increasingly it sounds like that's where the Lib Dems are on this.

 

If there was an English equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, should they be locked up?

[Ad Lib]

the Lib Dems arguing with "if Irish folk don't like our tolerance of far-right anti-Irish racism they should go back to where they came from" in the pursuit of Unionist votes? to avoid state interference in freedom of movement they could encourage the use of 'No Irish' signs outside the selected pubs to avoid confusion.

 

Not sure which is more liberal. increasingly it sounds like that's where the Lib Dems are on this.

You are such a child.

There is a functional distinction here. A very very clear one.

Incitement to violence, or breach of public order, is not the same as saying, singing, chanting or shouting, incredibly offensive and racist/sectarian/sexist/xenophobic things.

The former should be and always has been a criminal offence. The latter should not and should never be.

If someone goes into a pub and starts intimidating people, one of three things should happen.

1. If the intimidation constitutes a breach of public order, or threatens or is an incitement to, violence, then the police should be called, the individuals arrested, and charged.

If however 1 does not apply, then the decision about whether to have the person in question removed from the pub should not be one for the state. That should be a decision for the licence-holder, delegated to anyone they see fit. The licence holder can:

2. Remove the person in-line with a policy they themselves have created against certain behaviour in the establishment, which operate as conditions of entry for any member of the public onto private property; or

3. They permit the indivdual to remain in the establishment and those who do not like its hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere can write a negative review on TripAdvisor and never go back, losing the owner of the establishment much money and custom

The idea that we should criminalise activity that isn't otherwise in principle desirable to criminalise, simply because it is undesirable or unpleasant and other people haven't dealt with it, is just plain daft.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Ad Lib

[sergie's no1 fan]

I look forward to the 'Being an arsehole ned at a gig, chucking pints of pish on folk and punching random by standers' Act being brought in.

[HaikuHibee]

You are such a child.

There is a functional distinction here. A very very clear one.

Incitement to violence, or breach of public order, is not the same as saying, singing, chanting or shouting, incredibly offensive and racist/sectarian/sexist/xenophobic things.

The former should be and always has been a criminal offence. The latter should not and should never be.

If someone goes into a pub and starts intimidating people, one of three things should happen.

1. If the intimidation constitutes a breach of public order, or threatens or is an incitement to, violence, then the police should be called, the individuals arrested, and charged.

If however 1 does not apply, then the decision about whether to have the person in question removed from the pub should not be one for the state. That should be a decision for the licence-holder, delegated to anyone they see fit. The licence holder can:

2. Remove the person in-line with a policy they themselves have created against certain behaviour in the establishment, which operate as conditions of entry for any member of the public onto private property; or

3. They permit the indivdual to remain in the establishment and those who do not like its hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere can write a negative review on TripAdvisor and never go back, losing the owner of the establishment much money and custom

The idea that we should criminalise activity that isn't otherwise in principle desirable to criminalise, simply because it is undesirable or unpleasant and other people haven't dealt with it, is just plain daft.

 

Aye very good Ad Lib. It's funny when Ken Livingstone said something stupid about Zionists, you were on here like a flash explaining what Judaism means to you, why anti-Semitism is bad and how a great deal of people in this forum were intolerant c***s. Take a much more widespread prejudice in Scotland like anti-Irish bigotry, and you're going down a "live and let live", "let the barmen do their job" and "this is a matter for Trip Advisor" route.

Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[strichener]

Without wanting to regurgitate, it is quite funny seeing people on this thread stating that offensive behaviour should be tolerated whilst showing no tolerance of people's religious views.

I say get to f**k you hypocritical c***s.