Green Brigade/FOCUS

[Null]

This is reasonable. In reaching that point you have taken three steps away from the song and its contents.

And this illustrates my point wrt the implementation of the Act. You have to step away from the contents of the song, you have to step away from the events the song is referencing before you can even start to think about where offence is found.

That's my take on it...

Men killing themselves for political beliefs is not offensive...it's what the politics represent to people.

People support the politics as they believe they are fighting fir freedom.

Others oppose it, find it offensive, as they see the politics as supporting terrorist acts.

I agree the act is an ass...but I can't see it being disbanded unless the snp lose the next election.

 

[DevAdvocate]

This is reasonable. In reaching that point you have taken three steps away from the song and its contents.

And this illustrates my point wrt the implementation of the Act. You have to step away from the contents of the song, you have to step away from the events the song is referencing before you can even start to think about where offence is found.

Dev wants to cut out a few steps to justify his position and in turn give credence to the criminalising of a song. That is why I am so vehemently attacking his position because it just doesn't add up.

I have repeatedly asked him to try and tally it, but he hasn't.

Righto, I forgot, I only find it offensive because Bobby Sands is mentioned, you said so it must be true

 

[Null]

Or the police could apply the law and stop these marches. People should not have to avoid places because of the idiots in the world.

Rather than stop them, I favour them being held in parade grounds/parks where they can be properly policed n stewarded and no-one can take offensive as it is not in "public"

 

[RebelBhoy]

Really? And how exactly have I done that? I have acknowledged that you, and others, are offended. I have asked you to justify your rationale as to why you have stated the content is offensive and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

Here's a bit I wrote about Bobby Sands:

I don't have a problem with Rangers wanting to show support for the Armed Forces but when it turns into a jingoistic free for all and we have the unedifying sight of men in uniform dancing around like twats at a song gloryfying the death of another (Bobby Sands) i'm afraid it becomes embarassing and not a little disgusting.

http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/231342-Armed-Forces-Day-at-Ibrox/page2

What you said:

You just don't like it because it says the name Bobby Sands. That's all.

I've told you several times what the song is about, what the message is, who the song is about and what the background is, none of the individual names mentioned in the song offend me, None, why would they?

You have told me what you think the song is about and you were wrong.

I was offering you an "out" by saying it is because you don't like hearing the name Bobby Sands. It isn't like your argument has been consistent up to this point. May i remind you, you were offended by his image only two weeks ago. Quite the turnarond.

It's time for you to concede the point.

 

[RebelBhoy]

No i'm telling you that it is offensive to a great number of people, do you dispute that?

Perhaps you should speak with RL about context.

 

[RebelBhoy]

And it celebrates the life/death of members of an outlawed terrorist group or groups who killed innocent people in the name of political beliefs...

Martyrs for a cause that many in mainland UK find offensive...

As i have repeatedly been saying, and Dev through his evasiveness has proven, this is not the content of the song.

 

[RebelBhoy]

Righto, I forgot, I only find it offensive because Bobby Sands is mentioned, you said so it must be true

In lieu of any other response it was all could come up with.

Unless after ten pages you want to offer something?

 

[DevAdvocate]

You have told me what you think the song is about and you were wrong.

I was offering you an "out" by saying it is because you don't like hearing the name Bobby Sands. It isn't like your argument has been consistent up to this point. May i remind you, you were offended by his image only two weeks ago. Quite the turnarond.

It's time for you to concede the point.

It's time for me to take my own advice and stop trying to make you understand why songs about Ireland are offensive to the vast majority of people in Scotland. You don't get it, i'll have to live with that. The other people (like the 5 charged) don't get it either so they can continue to offend people and take the consequences.

I can live with that too.

 

[RebelBhoy]

It's time for me to take my own advice and stop trying to make you understand why songs about Ireland are offensive to the vast majority of people in Scotland. You don't get it, i'll have to live with that. The other people (like the 5 charged) don't get it either so they can continue to offend people and take the consequences.

I can live with that too.

Let's not pretend that this was in some way a lesson to the hard of thinking Republican.

This was all about getting you to stand by your assertion. You have failed to do that.

 

[Admiral Pure]

Really? And how exactly have I done that? I have acknowledged that you, and others, are offended. I have asked you to justify your rationale as to why you have stated the content is offensive and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

I'm not sure there is any argument about the song, its meaning, its subject matter or its specific lyrics through which you will be convinced that anyone is justified in finding RoH offensive.

If I understand you correctly, you appear to believe that because it refers to one specific event (or series of connected events if you prefer), there is no justification in placing that in any further historical context. Yes, it's about irish republicans jailed as terrorists, but how can you be offended by it, because it's not about or a justification for the terrorist offences themselves?

To me that's far from a convincing argument, and that's as someone who does not find RoH offensive, on a personal level. If that's not your argument at all, then I'm afraid you've lost me

 

[RebelBhoy]

I'm not sure there is any argument about the song, its meaning, its subject matter or its specific lyrics through which you will be convinced that anyone is justified in finding RoH offensive.

Well it looks like we'll never find out because nobody is prepared to offer any such argument.

If I understand you correctly, you appear to believe that because it refers to one specific event (or series of connected events if you prefer), there is no justification in placing that in any further historical context. Yes, it's about irish republicans jailed as terrorists, but how can you be offended by it, because it's not about or a justification for the terrorist offences themselves?

My contention is that it is not the content of the song that is offensive.

Dev has claimed that it is and failed to back that position up. By layering it, as you have with the quote above, we are several steps away from the actual content of the song. If that is where the offence is found, then that is a different argument.

To me that's far from a convincing argument, and that's as someone who does not find RoH offensive, on a personal level. If that's not your argument at all, then I'm afraid you've lost me

I thought I had made my position pretty clear tbh. I'll have to do better in future.

Just think how the legislation is being applied and try and apply it to a song delivered without offence and with no offensive content. Quite simply, there has to be a jump away from the content of the song before offence can be found. That ain't right in trying to affect a prosecution.

I fear it is a fait accompli anyway. The Scotch Government have decided that any expression of Irish Republican politics is illegal and that shall be that. No matter where the argument falls down as it has here with RoH.

 

[Albatross]

Well it looks like we'll never find out because nobody is prepared to offer any such argument.



My contention is that it is not the content of the song that is offensive.

Dev has claimed that it is and failed to back that position up. By layering it, as you have with the quote above, we are several steps away from the actual content of the song. If that is where the offence is found, then that is a different argument.



I thought I had made my position pretty clear tbh. I'll have to do better in future.

Just think how the legislation is being applied and try and apply it to a song delivered without offence and with no offensive content. Quite simply, there has to be a jump away from the content of the song before offence can be found. That ain't right in trying to affect a prosecution.

I fear it is a fait accompli anyway. The Scotch Government have decided that any expression of Irish Republican politics is illegal and that shall be that. No matter where the argument falls down as it has here with RoH.

Nail on the head.

My take is its an attempt to even it all up, so that they can claim Scotland is not a racist sectarian society.

Songs like TBB and BMGH are so obviously and blatantly sectarian hate songs, that in order to even it up as, Christine Graham has said, they have to do verbal somersaults to get something offensive on the Irish side.

St.Johnstone have banned flags and banners. Will be interesting to keep an eye on the next SEVCO game.

I have a feeling that all of this anti Irish campaign is because someone in the know, realises that SEVCO will go under, maybe a few times, but there will be no recovery and in order to reduce potential civil unrest the Irishness of the diaspora this side of the water will be diluted.

 

[DevAdvocate]

Let's not pretend that this was in some way a lesson to the hard of thinking Republican.

This was all about getting you to stand by your assertion. You have failed to do that.

According to you...and also according to you the song is not offensive in Scotland.

I'm telling you it is, whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you.

 

[rogueleader]

Bullshit.

RL wanted the song put in context. I put them in context and now you want to take it out of context again to invent offensiveness.

It being a song merely about hunger strikers in 1981 is totally disingenuous. To say that is the only theme contained in or held within the song is quite untrue and chooses to ignore the historical context.

Lets be clear, I have no disagreement with people who might want to sing such songs, that`s their right no matter how I might feel about it or indeed them, however what I find offensive is that they choose to do this where they have been both asked and told they can`t. What I find offensive is the bloody-minded , backward looking, irelands "freedom fight" obsessed people who turn up to use Celtic as a vehicle for their own victim mentality'

This is Scotland.

This is almost 2014.

Move on.

 

[rogueleader]

Your MO is to make an unqualified assertion and attempt to ridicule the eminently rational responses you get to that. This happens no matter whether your ridiculing stands up to scrutiny or not.

The context of this song is quite clearly about the Hunger Strikers of 1981 and not about their activities within the PIRA or the INLA.

So, yes. Of course I am serious. So i shall repeat myself. The content of the song cannot by any sensible appraisal be considered offensive. If it could, you would have offered it, but it isn't, so you haven't.

These things are - I believe the fashionable term is - Incorporated

 

[Null]

Why were they on hunger strike?

To reinstate their political prison status.

Why were they political prisoners?

As they were fighting for a republican cause by participating in criminal terrorist activity with pira or inla.

So, the song is linked to republicanism...that many people in the UK find offensive ...reasons advised earlier.

You can't look at the song in isolation... it's all connected.

 

[Admiral Pure]

It being a song merely about hunger strikers in 1981 is totally disingenuous. To say that is the only theme contained in or held within the song is quite untrue and chooses to ignore the historical context.

Precisely

 

[RebelBhoy]

According to you...and also according to you the song is not offensive in Scotland.

I'm telling you it is, whether you believe me or not is entirely up to you.

Sorry... According to me what?

Lets bust this myth right away shall we?

I get that the song offends you. You have made that clear. When asked to justify why the content of the song is offensive I've not seen anything remotely credible.

Really? And how exactly have I done that? I have acknowledged that you, and others, are offended. I have asked you to justify your rationale as to why you have stated the content is offensive and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

And this illustrates my point wrt the implementation of the Act. You have to step away from the contents of the song, you have to step away from the events the song is referencing before you can even start to think about where offence is found.

I think that is a fairly comprehensive rebuttal don't you?

Still nothing to be seen about that offensive content though....

 

[RebelBhoy]

Why were they on hunger strike?

To reinstate their political prison status.

Why were they political prisoners?

As they were fighting for a republican cause by participating in criminal terrorist activity with pira or inla.

So, the song is linked to republicanism...that many people in the UK find offensive ...reasons advised earlier.

You can't look at the song in isolation... it's all connected.

Henrik Larrson liked a smoke.

People sing about Henrik Larsson

Singing about Henrik Larsson means you want kids to smoke.... Absurd huh?

 

[Null]

Henrik Larrson liked a smoke.

People sing about Henrik Larsson

Singing about Henrik Larsson means you want kids to smoke.... Absurd huh?

Now, that is absurd...

If you link that together then your mental...

Are you saying it's the same for people who link roll if honour with republicanism?

If so, I'm out chief...