it is a specific criminal offence in Scotland which is prosecuted daily in the Sheriff Courts and due to its common law definition it can be applied to a number of scenarios. The maximum punishment if a case is remitted to the High Court remains imprisonment for life although such severe punishment is now rarely applied, usually being associated with breaches of licence during an existing life sentence. The Scottish Law definition of a breach of the peace is "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community." A constable may arrest any person, without warrant, who commits a breach of the peace. Breach of the peace can include, but is not limited to, any riotous behaviours (which includes 'rowdiness' or 'brawling') and any disorderly behaviour. This behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Breach covers (and always has done) multiple offences. I think its reasonable to arrest someone for singing songs which many people would find offensive, more importantly (as I said right at the start), this law is in place to stop other people taking their own form of action in response to the Breacher of said Peace.
It offends a great number of people but that's not the point. Context is key. If you sung it in the street at the top of your voice someone would not like it and react accordingly. Do you suggest no one has a right to be offended? Do you think they should be allowed to carry on singing until trouble does start, and only then should the Police act, perhaps arrest the people who are offended? Arrest everyone? Or just ignore it and let them fight it out on the street?
So, that song is not illegal. Good. That would be a breach of free speech if it was. People acting drunk and disorderly is a breach of the peace and as you said illegal. Arrest them. Do not, however, jail some ned because of what he said/sung. We may hate that ned, we may be disgusted and offended by that ned, but to jail him for what he said/sung is a clear breach of free speech. Arrest him for breach of the peace. To jail him because a judge didn't like what he said is an offence against free speech.
If you sung the neighbours theme tune under the same circumstances you would get the same results therefore the actual words don't matter, it'd be annoying and people would be pissed off Is there a right to be offended? Sounds silly, people just are offended, often pointlessly and in recent cases it appears those who take offence are the ones you need to worry about
Almost everyone on General Chat could be arrested if that law was applied consistently, in terms of the conviction that was given to the wee fella who sung the Billy Boys.
You never answered any of the questions, the important one being "should we just let people fight on the street"?
I disagree completely that singing the Billy Boys is "Free Speech", however, I only made the point about Breach to show that this statement is a lie/mistruth/bullshit:- "Lamont was jailed under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. This draconian law makes it potentially a crime to use “offensive” speech and gestures at football that would not be illegal elsewhere" Breach covers: "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community." 'rowdiness' and disorderly behaviour". Therefore, there were already laws in place to stop people singing songs likely to provoke a response, the OBAF did not get this guy the jail.
No, but if you're going to fight with someone every time you are offended then YOU are the problem, the song is just a catalyst
Who said I'M the one doing the fighting, I have no interest whatsoever in some ****nut singing the Billy Boys or RoH? Whether YOU agree or not, whether YOU like it or not, it's banned for a good reason, because YOU don't understand the reason does not make it any less offensive. Anyhoo, at least you seem to accept that the song is a "Catalyst".
It's the "Royal You"....:-/ many many people heard these songs week in week out and there was bugger all trouble. The conviction rates for OBAF are very small and are seeing people being convicted for singing "'well 'well **** yer 'well" and singing to a horse (no I can't source it for you so just assume I'm lying) which is in no way alarming to a reasonable person It's an act that suits the police budget and the SNP ego and that is the only reason it remains We went on about Je Suis Charlie who suffered for actually intending to offend but crack down on songs that may be found to be offensive but are not actually designed to offend Bonkers
Why do you think the guy in the original story was singing about being "Up to his knees in Fenian blood"? Any guesses?
OBAF law is fried chicken justice. It was put in place to make arrests and convictions easier. Although there was already laws available to be able to charge fannies with singing party tunes in the street such as the the ones been highlighted in this thread the Scottish government wanted a one sze fits all way of dealing with the problem. That's exactly how breach of the peace works. It's so vague that it can be and is used to cover a multitude of sins. It is also open to abuse by the police, just like OFAB. The reason OFAB has been such a disaster is it was cobbled together on the back of a *** packet as a knee jerk reaction to a barny filled old firm game. It's a shambles and needs recinded. However at the mo, it is law and the laws the law. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows what does and does not fall under it's remit. Thr fact is the only ****s that bothered about it are the ****s who know they break it. Oh and the ****s who think there's political gain in supporting aforementioned ****s. For 99% of the country the law doesn't affect them anf never will
Am bored with this. So, my final say on the matter is this: Be very careful about what rights you give away by agreeing to extinguish some annoying ****'s right to say something offensive.
