People are more aware that football fans are being criminalised by stupid laws.
Have you considered the possibility that a campaign to get a song in praise of IRA/INLA members into the charts might actually lead to increased support for the law?
People are more aware that football fans are being criminalised by stupid laws.
When most people read this story they are unlikely to think that Celtic fans are being criminalised, they are far more likely to think that Celtic fans are breaking the law, and they are as it stands. Breaking the law as a protest is an action unlikely to get that law changed.
Singing this song at a football game will get you arrested, even if the law did not exist the singers could be arrested under at least 2 other current laws. Do away with the new law and the others simply form the basis of any charges.
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. It is against the law for a Catholic to prime minister.
The extent and application of existing laws was explored by the justice committee. Celtic fans could not be convicted under the existing legislation, and rightly so.When most people read this story they are unlikely to think that Celtic fans are being criminalised, they are far more likely to think that Celtic fans are breaking the law, and they are as it stands. Breaking the law as a protest is an action unlikely to get that law changed.
Singing this song at a football game will get you arrested, even if the law did not exist the singers could be arrested under at least 2 other current laws. Do away with the new law and the others simply form the basis of any charges.
People are more aware that football fans are being criminalised by stupid laws.
Have you considered the possibility that a campaign to get a song in praise of IRA/INLA members into the charts might actually lead to increased support for the law?
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. It is against the law for a Catholic to prime minister.
No it's not.
Do you see why people can take offence at songs like this?
anybody...Who?
So, you'd be happy by chants of al qaeda at Celtic park ?Yeah but as I said I take offence to the BNP but it I still don't think they should be banned as I also believe in a free society.
I cannot see why anybody would be offended by the lyrics.
I cannot see how anybody could be offended by the subject matter.
I struggle to see why people might be offended by the persons being sung about.
I can see why people might be offended by the organisations that those men belonged to.
So, you'd be happy by chants of al qaeda at Celtic park ?
I cannot see why anybody would be offended by the lyrics.
I cannot see how anybody could be offended by the subject matter.
I struggle to see why people might be offended by the persons being sung about.
I can see why people might be offended by the organisations that those men belonged to.
Point 4 connects points 1,2 and 3...
Sorry, but I dont believe you... if chants were heard about other terrorist organisations the beel would be off the radar.Wouldn't give a **** personally but in response to your point.
If you are going to ban politics from football then shouldn't we also ban the poppy?
there is no leap...Bobby sands was in the ra...he killed himself for that cause. Roh celebrates that fact...Yes, point 4 is the leap that the person claiming offence has to make. And it is a leap.
You can't convict on the thought processes of a third party. That is ridiculous.
Sorry, but I dont believe you... if chants were heard about other terrorist organisations the beel would be off the radar.
In reality, yes...I hate how the poppy has been hijacked as for political point scoring .
I can see why it would offend some fans at cp...same as symbols/songs about the ira offend others.
If you want politics at football, then you need to accept them all...
You can't say that there are no leaps and then proceed to tell me that it isn't hard to make them. It's one or the other.there is no leap...Bobby sands was in the ra...he killed himself for that cause. Roh celebrates that fact...Yes, point 4 is the leap that the person claiming offence has to make. And it is a leap.
You can't convict on the thought processes of a third party. That is ridiculous.
It's not hard to make connection...