1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act (20

Discussion in 'Celtic' started by DevAdvocate, Feb 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RebelBhoy

    RebelBhoy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    25,218
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    I have RL. Several times.
    I have placed it in context. Again, several times.

    I have spoken of what The Lord Advocate said what the law was supposed to be about. Indeed quoting him directly on it.....again, several times.

    I'm sure you are genuine if you say you have missed it but I'm sure you'll appreciate that there comes a point where one grows weary of repetition.

    I am all too aware that I'm not the best at articulating things but there comes a point when it is evident that people are not extending the courtesy of reading my posts. I am confident I have made those points in this and other threads. Extremely confident of it. It's why I don't bother responding to the "what's it got to do with Celtic" posts. It's been answered dozens of times, so get to thinking that folk don't care about the answer.

    Now certainly in the last two threads on this topic people have invented arguments on my behalf. Certainly other people are guilty of telling me what it is I think. I really can't be bothered with that.

    I have always been happy to take on board other people's point of view on this topic. It should be a two way street. It's not. I'm a reasonable guy RL. I expected the same courtesy in return and I'm not getting it.

    I'll ask you to indulge me and to take a look at those stats and to see what they really tell you. I'm addressing you in particular because I know you disagree with me on the issue of songs. I'm not even going to ask for a response, just that you indulge me this one time.

    This is what I think.

    Almost a third of charges don't result in a conviction. I with all the time, money and resources ****ed at the policing of this Act, one third of occasions the "reasonable" people tasked with enforcing the Act have failed to satisfy the courts of the offence. That's a terrible conviction rate under those circumstances. My take is that application of this act has to be proportionate. It's not proportionate to **** with peoples lives when a third of the time it is getting ****ed up.... But that's beside the point.

    That ratio is akin to Anthony Stokes goals per game.....folk want rid of him.

    Now much of this debate has focused on the singing of Rebel songs. Specifically the Roll of Honour. Arguments are that many of those cases have been thrown out of court... Which they have. Some have not. Now, I don't ever recall anyone assert that most cases involving any perceived breach of this act are getting "laughed" out of court but apparently someone somewhere has asserted it to make it worthy of comment here. These statistics are being used to support the notion that these cases are not getting laughed out of court. Well I contend that the data presented there in no way supports that argument. The data to "prove" that assertion just isn't there. I hope I can articulate this well enough to get my point across. To prove that cases are not getting laughed out of court you would need to know the breakdown of the pleas entered by the defendants. That is to say that of the 68% of the charges that secured a prosecution how many of those were tested by the entry of a not guilty plea? I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is the case, but it is possible that every single one of the 68% of successful convictions came off the back of a guilty plea. Conversely every single one of the 32% of failed charges could be as a result of not guilty pleas..... But that data wasn't collated.

    Now as I say, I'm not aware of anyone anywhere asserting that all of the applications of this Act are getting laughed out of court. If anyone did make that assertion these figures do not debunk that. I don't believe that someone who is certainly not stupid and with a background in law enforcement and claims to be analytical would invent an assertion that nobody made, present data that doesn't debunk that invented assertion in any way and then claim that it does. It doesn't add up.

    Then on to the point about "Rangers" fans being more likely to be prosecuted than Celtic fans as an apparent platform to take a pop at naïveté, lies or propaganda of FAC. Dev then proceeded to concede that nobody actually said this, so I suppose contesting the point further is somewhat moot. However it is necessary as he has stuck to his guns on the fact that more "Rangers" fans have been prosecuted than Celtic fans..... A fact that I don't believe anyone disputed. What was and is disputed is the rigour with which police will "go after" a particular fan grouping. Unless we work with the premise that the behaviour of every supporter of every club is uniform then these statistics do not or can not prove one way or the other the likelihood of any supporter grouping being more or less likely to have charges brought against them.

    Again, I do not believe that someone not stupid and with a background in law enforcement and claims to be analytical would adduce that those figures support the notion that FAC's position is not worthy of merit. That doesn't add up.

    I'm sorry for going on but it is what it is. People tell me I have an agenda and it's true. But it's not hidden and I'm certainly not the only one. If ever I was interested in having the last word, I don't want it any more. I said to someone yesterday that I don't have an ego on this or anything really but I felt I had to make the point.... And now I have.
     
    #141
  2. DevAdvocate

    DevAdvocate Gigging bassist

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    63,752
    Likes Received:
    13,027
    I'm here all week <whistle>
     
    #142
  3. rogueleader

    rogueleader suave gringo

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    19,250
    Likes Received:
    8,235
    And threrein lies the crux of the matter in my opinion. It seems to me - and tell me if I am wrong - that you believe the expression of strongly held views about matters relating to Irish Liberation, for want of a better catch-all term, are an inalienable right. I am not disputing that they are. Where we cannot agree is that this right is free to be exercised in any public forum ( in this instance the context of expressing it in a football stadium ) where people have an equal inalienable right not to be exposed to these views. Just as I would not accept or tolerate taking my son to watch a football match, or a rugby match, or the cinema, or a concert and listen to the political rhetoric , or indeed mere support of the BNP. I likewise do not accept or tolerate him being exposed to the political rhetoric or support of Irish Nationalism. Or radical Islam. Or Black Power. Or Gay Rights. Or Catholicism. Or Protestantism.. And so on. It is not for others who believe in these things to make that determination for either me or him.

    To me , that is the whole point of the Act. I dont perceive it as " evening up " or criminalising a certain set of beliefs.
    To me it is the very necessary enshrinement of the publics right not to be exposed to belief systems in public that they may find offensive, while doing nothing to disallow those beliefs appropriate expression in an appropriate forum.

    I respect your right to these beliefs.The agenda or strong beliefs you have prevents you from seeing the other side of the coin here and that is, my equal right not to have these issues foisted upon me in the context of attending an event for the purposes of entertainment.


    I`m sure we will never see eye to eye on this, but I actually quite enjoy debating it - however I`m happy to leave it there and leave you with the last word if you wish





    Well, I`ll try to anyway
     
    #143
  4. Patience

    Patience Spastic Arab

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,984
    Likes Received:
    18,997
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    RL.

    <applause>
     
    #144
  5. Patience

    Patience Spastic Arab

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,984
    Likes Received:
    18,997
    I genuinely think you're mentally ******ed.
     
    #145
  6. anportmorbhoy

    anportmorbhoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    77
    <ok>

    This. Put in much better words than I ever could

    <applause>
     
    #146

  7. Null

    Null Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    34,179
    Likes Received:
    9,757
    The problem is what people find offensive ...

    If people find ROH offensive because the associate the song with terrorists as , in thier opinion, the guys who killed themselves - in the name of a republican cause - belonged to terrorist organisations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations) then that is their right. That's what the law is about... to minimise the offense at football grounds. You cannot force them not to ...no matter how big a leap you think it is (I dont think it's that big a leap to be honest).

    It doesn't have to be sectarian to be offensive...

    If you attend a Gary Og concert, then you are pretty confident that everyone there is of a like mind, so no one can take offence at the songs being sung.

    However, at a football grond, you can also be pretty confident that not everyone is of a like mind/shares your viewpoint, so expect that what you sing might offend someone.

    As such, Celtic have asked for "political" songs to not be sung at Celtic Park as you might breach the law ... so, the easiest thing to do is to stop it and then take your protest elsewhere.

    A good suggestion would to be stand outside the Scottish Parliament singing "political" songs ...
     
    #147
  8. Mind The Duck

    Mind The Duck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38,554
    Likes Received:
    15,006
    Not wanting people to be arrested for singing = mentally ******ed?

    In that case I don't want to be sane
     
    #148
  9. Patience

    Patience Spastic Arab

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,984
    Likes Received:
    18,997
    There you go again, skirting round the actual reason for being arrested, which is singing songs that are deemed offensive (by law, nonetheless). Not for "singing".

    You're either deliberately obtuse or just plain thick. Either way, you represent an element of spasticated Celtic fans, with their diddly dee Rebel songs, that are just a complete pain in the arse.

    Simply put, **** off elsewhere to sing your victim songs and your historical references to Irish independence, you bunch of victim-playing paranoid ****s.
     
    #149
  10. VenomPD

    VenomPD Merrick jr

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    4,408
    Even more simply put; **** Irish rebel songs.
     
    #150
  11. Mind The Duck

    Mind The Duck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38,554
    Likes Received:
    15,006
    Making it criminal to be offensive is silly. Looking to be offended by a song that makes no offensive remarks is desperate. Defending these positions is worrying

    Complaining about finding songs offensive while yourself are being offensive is....I'm sure there is a word for that but I'm too thick to think of it

    I just hope you don't swear when you go to the football, you nasty offensive type of person
     
    #151
  12. DevAdvocate

    DevAdvocate Gigging bassist

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    63,752
    Likes Received:
    13,027
    Did you read what RL said?
     
    #152
  13. anportmorbhoy

    anportmorbhoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    77
    The only reason it has become a criminal offence is because of people like you - who ironically are the people complaining its become a criminal offence.

    Because you can't think for yourselves what may or may not be acceptable in this day and age they have had to bring in a law to spell it out to you to get it to stop
     
    #153
  14. Patience

    Patience Spastic Arab

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,984
    Likes Received:
    18,997
    <doh> It's what the song is about that people find offensive. Given that the club's meant to be welcoming to all people of all backgrounds, then even more reason to get rid of the backward rebel songs.

    What's desperate is you thinking I can't call you what you are on an internet football forum because I support the ban on bollocks like ROH being sung at Celtic Park and elsewhere <laugh>

    At least Rebel tries to appear smart FFS. You're almost proud of being a downer.
     
    #154
  15. anportmorbhoy

    anportmorbhoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,381
    Likes Received:
    77
    I dont mean to keep biting - but just can't help it

    Whilst the words of the song may not say outright "we wish were up to our knees in British blood" can you not see that mentioning the IRA generally (or Republicans), due to some of their acts on British shores, could be considered offensive to people IN BRITAIN?

    Irnonically the GB have had issues with commemorating British Soldiers due to acts they committed in IRELAND - yet still cant see it
     
    #155
  16. Mind The Duck

    Mind The Duck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38,554
    Likes Received:
    15,006
    The song is about the deaths of men carrying out a peaceful protest and the club is happy to play songs penned by the leader of those protesters. The song isn't offensive, people choose to be offended because of who the protesters were affiliated with

    Being thick, I could be wrong about this, but the word I might have been looking for is hypocrite...dunno...it seems to fit with your last post. The "offence" doesn't interest you. You just want the songs you don't want to hear at football stopped...buy it is at any cost and that is worrying and, forgive me for being offensive...stupid

    The offended really need to grow up, nobody is threatening them or slandering them.
     
    #156
  17. DevAdvocate

    DevAdvocate Gigging bassist

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    63,752
    Likes Received:
    13,027
    Yes, the same GB who found the poppy so offensive they spent weeks making a banner about it. <laugh>
     
    #157
  18. DevAdvocate

    DevAdvocate Gigging bassist

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    63,752
    Likes Received:
    13,027
    Are you telling me that I have no right to be offended by this song? You cannot think of ANY reason whatsoever why ANYONE would be offended?

    Is there ANY subject which you DO think is offensive?
     
    #158
  19. Mind The Duck

    Mind The Duck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38,554
    Likes Received:
    15,006
    I don't believe it was a law that anybody asked for nor was it needed
     
    #159
  20. Mind The Duck

    Mind The Duck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    38,554
    Likes Received:
    15,006
    RoH is less offensive than Flower of Scotland imo

    Tell me what offends you
     
    #160
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page