I like this

[eric cartman]

No on both counts.

I don't know where mens rea comes into this with this Act because if it does, then I find it hard to imagine how there could ever be any safe prosecutions under this Act. Yet the Partick fan who made sectarian comments specifically with the intention to offend is allowed to walk..... And so he should, but that was one of the few absolute slam dunk, home run, open goal convictions you could ever hope to get and he was let off as he "wasn't the type of person" the law was introduced for.

So if the song doesn't contain any offensive lyrics how is it deemed offensive then?

 

[DevAdvocate]

I'm not sure of the point you are making.

Are you saying there is no requirement for a guilty mind under this Act?

From your post, the guy at Partick was an absolute stick on to get prosecuted.

I can only guess that the Sheriff decided that the Thistle fan was simply being ironic when he sung "**** the Pope and **** the Queen".

At Glasgow Sheriff Court, he was found guilty by Sheriff Norman Ritchie QC of behaviour likely to incite public disorder by singing sectarian and offensive remarks. But he told the teenager: “You are not the sort of person who creates the problem and needs this legislation.”

Clearly the Sheriff thought the comments sectarian nor even offensive because this is a song from the Thistle songbook which is poking fun at Celtic and Rangers.

 

[RebelBhoy]

Doesn't make sense. You can vote for a racist government but cant sing a popular song at a football ground.

Not only that, under the offensive behaviour at football Act you can indulge in offensive behaviour at football and apparently not fall foul of the law..... If you are not the type of person the law was intended for.

 

[DevAdvocate]

The law will not be changed because of 4000 downloads, you can take that to the bank.

 

[RebelBhoy]

I can only guess that the Sheriff decided that the Thistle fan was simply being ironic when he sung "**** the Pope and **** the Queen".

At Glasgow Sheriff Court, he was found guilty by Sheriff Norman Ritchie QC of behaviour likely to incite public disorder by singing sectarian and offensive remarks. But he told the teenager: “You are not the sort of person who creates the problem and needs this legislation.”

Clearly the Sheriff thought the comments sectarian nor even offensive because this is a song from the Thistle songbook which is poking fun at Celtic and Rangers.

And clearly the RoH is not intended to offend, nor does it have any offensive content.

And by poking fun, you mean an attempt to offend. Which it is.

 

[RebelBhoy]

The law will not be changed because of 4000 downloads, you can take that to the bank.

No, but it does shine a light on the law.

 

[eric cartman]

Frankie boyle is ****ed then because his entire career is based on offending people.

 

[Null]

Eric...your points are invalid .

You raise points about non connected "items"

 

[Null]

The law was not designed just for republicans rebs

 

[Null]

Pud...shut the **** up. Don't get involved in this ****e again.

 

[eric cartman]

Eric...your points are invalid .

You raise points about non connected "items"

How do you prosecute someone for causing offence, by singing a song that contains no offensive lyrics?

 

[Null]

How do you prosecute someone for causing offence, by singing a song that contains no offensive lyrics?

It's offensive behaviour at football act...

Not all people who go to football share same views. In case if roh, to some it's a song about freedom fighters. To others, it's about criminals and terrorists. Some find the content offensive.

If the content is offensive to some then it is deemed to breach the act.

It's subjective, which makes it a nonsense law but a law all the same.

 

[DevAdvocate]

And clearly the RoH is not intended to offend, nor does it have any offensive content.

And by poking fun, you mean an attempt to offend. Which it is.

As I said, I can only guess.

It's offensive behaviour at football act...

Not all people who go to football share same views. In case if roh, to some it's a song about freedom fighters. To others, it's about criminals and terrorists. Some find the content offensive.

If the content is offensive to some then it is deemed to breach the act.

It's subjective, which makes it a nonsense law but a law all the same.

Which has been my line all along

 

[eric cartman]

It's offensive behaviour at football act...

Not all people who go to football share same views. In case if roh, to some it's a song about freedom fighters. To others, it's about criminals and terrorists. Some find the content offensive.

If the content is offensive to some then it is deemed to breach the act.

It's subjective, which makes it a nonsense law but a law all the same.

How can a law be subjective? Either it is an offensive song or it isn't. This same law should be used against the tartan army and the singing of the national anthem. Which would be ridiculous but as you say the law is the law.

 

[ManDingo 20"/20"]

It's subjective, which makes it a nonsense law but a law all the same.

Most, if not all criminal law is subjective. Just cause you think rape is wrong doesn't mean Gambol does.

Miscarriages and **** happen every day and its not being allowed to sing that pits these fannies against the law. Like anyone gives a flying **** about your supposed injustice.

 

[Null]

The law is not subjective...what people find offensive is.

To that point, songs about terrorists are offensive to some...so the song breaches the act. So, in line with the law...don't sing it at a football match.

Downloading said song does nothing to highlight the law...

 

[eric cartman]

The law is not subjective...what people find offensive is.

To that point, songs about terrorists are offensive to some...so the song breaches the act. So, in line with the law...don't sing it at a football match.

Downloading said song does nothing to highlight the law...

Highlights that a good number of people don't find it offensive.

 

[anportmorbhoy]

The law is not subjective...what people find offensive is.

To that point, songs about terrorists are offensive to some...so the song breaches the act. So, in line with the law...don't sing it at a football match.

Downloading said song does nothing to highlight the law...

Highlights that a good number of people don't find it offensive.

A lot of people (mainly huns) dont find the famine song offensive

There is still no need for it at the football

 

[RebelBhoy]

The law was not designed just for republicans rebs

I'm not the best at getting my point across. I am trying to do better.

You are right, it was not designed just for Republicans but It was specifically designed to criminalise Republicans.

 

[RebelBhoy]

It's offensive behaviour at football act...

Not all people who go to football share same views. In case if roh, to some it's a song about freedom fighters. To others, it's about criminals and terrorists. Some find the content offensive.

If the content is offensive to some then it is deemed to breach the act.

It's subjective, which makes it a nonsense law but a law all the same.

And to make it criminal, there needs to be intent. I understand the contention that people may sing RoH to cause offence but the possibility of finding anyone who does so to be extremely remote.