Fannies Against Criminalisation

What in the name of **** are you talking about. Are there laws in place that can deal with this sort of thing or not. Simple ****ing question.

We are talking about people who are breaking no law. Existing law, imagined law or recently enacted law.

 

As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, people are not breaking the law.

People are being arrested, charged, called to appear, subject to FBO's And then either discharged or acquitted.

No laws are being broken.

 

Ok, just so I get this right. I am not putting words in your mouth, just saying how this reads.

You think legislation that doesn't stop people singing about a political struggle is entirely merited in order to stop people singing about a political struggle.

Is that correct?

 

Because the legislation is ****e and causing problems for innocent football fans. Was that not obvious?

 

I'm glad you mentioned that. The Officer in charge of the Focus unit at Celtic Park Tommy McCrindle saw his role as “Fume-a-Pest & Termite Control.” Quite clearly a prejudiced view and quite patently and obviously unreasonable. If an unreasonable man is offering direction to other officers then it is evident that their decisions are not reasonable.

Perhaps this explains why not one single Celtic supporter who has entered a not guilty plea has been convicted under this legislation. The police not being competent to affect the legislation is just another reason to scrap it

 

I take the point. I was told a story today about an investigation where the person investigating was upset by the result they got in court. They felt vulnerable in their position and somehow responsible for the failure of the case.

My immediate thought was that it wasn't their fault. Their job was to gather evidence and present it to others to make a decision on it. Yes, offer an opinion, but the decision isn't ultimately theirs.

With this law, a status of being a "reasonable person" is conferred on a police officer. Yet the decisions they have made in affecting it are demonstrably poor ones. I think the reason for that lies in the same kind of thing. The feds are invested in this because they are being asked to take subjective decisions on things that are abstract. Namely the concept of offence.

Taking 'reasonable' decisions wrt breach of the peace (for example) is easier because the breach is, or should be, demonstrable. Proving the guilty mind is not so easy (i think.... And I am sure Dev can keep me right) but I believe it would be accepted that ignoring the potential escalation in the breach of peace would be enough to demonstrate mens rea.

With the notion of offence, the cops have to prove they are offended and that the deliverer of that offence intended to offend. That in itself is difficult but ally that with the fact that they are taking direction from someone who is not reasonable.

Convicting Neil Lennon under this Act would be very easy though wouldn't it? He called Jim Goodwin a ****ing Fanny.... Clearly the intention is to offend. It was at the football. Many people saw it on the tv and some were offended enough to complain about it.

It fits all the criteria. In fact it would be the one time they could get an open and shut case against a Celtic fan.
Of course it would be a good way to stop these foul mouthed scum from dragging the game in Scotland down..... Right?

Or how about a Chief Executive calling a group of supporters "bastards" when in an airport returning home from a game? Throw the book at the ****.... Right?