Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[williemillersmoustache]

I don't understand why people think something else has to replace it.

 

Because the inaction from all parties we had before was unacceptable.

 

You don't like the OBAFA? Fine, don't f**k about at the football then.

You want it repealed? Fine, stop fucking about at the football then.

You feel your fans are being persecuted? Fine, stop them from fucking about at the football then.

You feel your member clubs are being unfairly targeted? Fine, impress upon them the need for their fans, to stop, fucking about, at the football then.

 

All of these things were possible before OBAFA, they were simply ignored. It's laughable and naive in only the way a Lib Dem can be for you to think going back to the "lets just hope its gets better plan" to work this time around.

Come October, post-league-bigot-fest #1, you'll be screaming for something to be done and so will the opportunistic yoons, gifted a place at Holyrood without a mandate to choose their own stationary, currently using this as a stick to beat the back by popular decree, record third term, 1,000,000 votes, (highest something or other in Europe), party of the people, for the people, SNP government of Scotland.

[vikingTON]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-politics-of-hatred/

 

Seems strange that not one of the also-rans on the opposition benches apparently shares the view of the majority of the Scottish population who support the Act, but rather conveniently all fall into the minority bracket of those who are deeply concerned by the legislation. Either the politicians have scrutinised the effects of the Act to a far more exhaustive degree than the lay population (including 19 year old VLs who only got in less than a fortnight ago), as well as possessing greater expertise than the independent academic study which broadly supported the Act's generally 'common sense' implementation in 2015. Either that or they're not actually concerned with the content of the Act, but are rather posturing to 'achieve' a political victory. It's a toughie. 

 

Naturally you'd expect this level of slack-jawed opposition for opposition's sake from Laebur - the party of the Bain Principle - but I suspect that this will prove to be yet another own goal committed by the Greens, if they choose to align with foaming 'Scottish Unionist' sentiment against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish population as a whole. 

[Wee Willie]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-politics-of-hatred/

 

Seems strange that not one of the also-rans on the opposition benches apparently shares the view of the majority of the Scottish population who support the Act, but rather conveniently all fall into the minority bracket of those who are deeply concerned by the legislation. Either the politicians have scrutinised the effects of the Act to a far more exhaustive degree than the lay population (including 19 year old VLs who only got in less than a fortnight ago), as well as possessing greater expertise than the independent academic study which broadly supported the Act's generally 'common sense' implementation in 2015. Either that or they're not actually concerned with the content of the Act, but are rather posturing to 'achieve' a political victory. It's a toughie. 

 

Naturally you'd expect this level of slack-jawed opposition for opposition's sake from Laebur - the party of the Bain Principle - but I suspect that this will prove to be yet another own goal committed by the Greens, if they choose to align with foaming 'Scottish Unionist' sentiment against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish population as a whole. 

Dinnae blame me, I voted SNP/SNP

[HaikuHibee]

This would sort it out. Introduce bevvy at games, but not the Old Firm.

 

Once they can behave, then allow them alcohol. They would self-police.

[Savage Henry]

Oh Wings. You mentally deranged fruit loop.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

That wings article is pure toys out of the pram stuff from the Rev. Again.

"In 2013/14 a great fuss was made over almost half of those prosecuted under the OBFA being acquitted, but those stats were freak – previous and subsequent years saw much higher conviction rates"

I do enjoy it when stupid people try to talk statistics.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Carl Cort's Hamstring

[Ad Lib]

Because the inaction from all parties we had before was unacceptable.

You don't like the OBAFA? Fine, don't f**k about at the football then.

You want it repealed? Fine, stop fucking about at the football then.

You feel your fans are being persecuted? Fine, stop them from fucking about at the football then.

You feel your member clubs are being unfairly targeted? Fine, impress upon them the need for their fans, to stop, fucking about, at the football then.

All of these things were possible before OBAFA, they were simply ignored. It's laughable and naive in only the way a Lib Dem can be for you to think going back to the "lets just hope its gets better plan" to work this time around.

Come October, post-league-bigot-fest #1, you'll be screaming for something to be done and so will the opportunistic yoons, gifted a place at Holyrood without a mandate to choose their own stationary, currently using this as a stick to beat the back by popular decree, record third term, 1,000,000 votes, (highest something or other in Europe), party of the people, for the people, SNP government of Scotland.

Well done on ignoring the whole of the rest of the post that literally explains why it's a straw man to suggest that merely repealing the Act means inaction or reverting to the situation pre the Act in all other respects.

[Ad Lib]

The absolute state of Wings though.

[williemillersmoustache]

Well done on ignoring the whole of the rest of the post that literally explains why it's a straw man to suggest that merely repealing the Act means inaction or reverting to the situation pre the Act in all other respects.

 

I see no reason to believe we wouldn't immediately revert to the situation pre-act of everyone standing around saying it's someone elses problem while the SFA blame the government for not giving them £4million quid for facial recognition software or some other distraction.

[Granny Danger]

I'm no great fan of WoS but I notice folk criticising the article without any explanation of why.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

It needs to be pointed out that even the wings article calla the legislation "largely symbolic" and suffers from "poor drafting."

But it's all a unionist conspiracy, backed by the Greens...

[Ad Lib]

I see no reason to believe we wouldn't immediately revert to the situation pre-act of everyone standing around saying it's someone elses problem while the SFA blame the government for not giving them £4million quid for facial recognition software or some other distraction.

This is just the thing though. There's nothing to "revert" to.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the systemic and arbitrary criminalisation of football fans singing offensive songs has done absolutely anything to reduce sectarianism and/or violence in society.

Like, none.

[williemillersmoustache]

This is just the thing though. There's nothing to "revert" to.

 

Doing f**k all is doing something

 

 

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that the systemic and arbitrary criminalisation of football fans singing offensive songs has done absolutely anything to reduce sectarianism and/or violence in society.

Like, none.

 

How about at football? Have to say I've noticed fewer fuckers singing to me about Bobby Sands at Pittodrie since 2012.

[Jambomo]

This is just the thing though. There's nothing to "revert" to.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the systemic and arbitrary criminalisation of football fans singing offensive songs has done absolutely anything to reduce sectarianism and/or violence in society.

Like, none.

 

That's true but it was brought in to address the problems that Scottish football has, not just because they thought it would be a laugh.

 

Yes, you can say the law hasn't worked and can repeal it (and I agree isn't a particularly good or effective law) but what does that do to address the issues in Scottish football that the law was brought in for? Nothing. Nor does just going back to complete inaction help the issue either. That's why, rather than just taking the popular option of getting rid of the law, they should instead be trying to find a better, more effective solution (even if that is just pressuring the SFA to get its finger out and start taking action) to replace it with.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The problem is that this has turned into something of a political (excuse the pun) football. The Tories and Labour clearly have ulterior motives - the result being that any positive criticism of the Act is met by derision by the SNP fanboys.

My own view is that the Act should not be repealed but amended to make it workable and enforceable. I also think that if the Act were amended then it should go beyond football - why should offensive behaviour be tolerated anywhere outside football?

[williemillersmoustache]

2 x good posts in a row from deetillehdie and jambono there. 

[Savage Henry]

It needs to be pointed out that even the wings article calla the legislation "largely symbolic" and suffers from "poor drafting."

But it's all a unionist conspiracy, backed by the Greens...

 

And, of course, a computer games reviewer would know all about drafting legislation.

[D.A.F.C]

Sorry but having to listen to bigoted songs is not part of any modern society.

Swearing at football should be allowed in moderation away from family sections. This is totally different from 3000 pished morons gleefully singing about killing of Catholics.

[Ad Lib]

That's true but it was brought in to address the problems that Scottish football has, not just because they thought it would be a laugh.

 

Yes, you can say the law hasn't worked and can repeal it (and I agree isn't a particularly good or effective law) but what does that do to address the issues in Scottish football that the law was brought in for? Nothing. Nor does just going back to complete inaction help the issue either. That's why, rather than just taking the popular option of getting rid of the law, they should instead be trying to find a better, more effective solution (even if that is just pressuring the SFA to get its finger out and start taking action) to replace it with.

It's not the responsibility of the Scottish Government to "address the problems Scottish football has". They have no more right to tell the SPFL/SFA/clubs how to deal with sectarian singing than they do to tell them what proportion of their turnover is allowed to be spent on players' wages or what the Premier-Championship playoff structure should be.

The only remit the Scottish Government has to interfere in Scottish football is where there are things that ought already and in wider society to be illegal. They can send the inspectors in to check food hygiene at the kiosks, investigate fraudulent transactions, even insist on a health and safety certificate for stadiums like they would for anywhere like the Hydro or the Aberdeen Music Hall.

But they do not have the authority or remit to tell Scottish football clubs and regulatory authorities and fans what they can and cannot sing going to or from, or while at, a game of football.

The idea that you have to have a more effective solution than a completely ineffective solution to justify getting rid of a completely ineffective solution that is additionally a violation of the civil liberties of citizens, is creepy.

Besides which, absolutely no one is suggesting that the Scottish Government should do nothing to tackle sectarianism in Scottish society. The opposition parties all support intitiatives to educate people out of bigotry and would probably applaud and support the SPFL and SFA if they decided to impose tougher penalties on clubs whose fans breached rules about behaviour in their stadiums.

But the fact that the SPFL won't do that isn't a justification for a single state action, let alone criminalising individuals. The state does not have the authority or the legitimacy to stop bigots from being bigots.

[williemillersmoustache]

A compelling argument to sit on ones hands and just hope things get better. It's well reasoned, it's well written, well spaced and presented and in an amusingly allegorical fashion with the Liberal Democrats, utterly ineffectual and a bit whiny.