Singing Roll of Honour at a Football Ground is an arrestable offence. So is smoking a reefer.
I like this
- Thread starter Mind The Duck
- Start date
- Status
Singing Roll of Honour at a Football Ground is an arrestable offence. So is smoking a reefer.
They are arrested but when it goes to court the charge is dropped. So they are crying because the police still arrest them when they shouldn't.
You will of course appreciate the difference between arrest and prosecution.
On several occasions the courts have failed to secure a prosecution for singing Roll of Honour. It is not a criminal offence to sing it. It is a criminal offence to smoke weed.
Certainly a training issue for the Police.
I once got arrested at uni for breaking a fight up that my idiot flat mate started, then when the cops arrived, they slung me in the back of the wagon on my own thinking I was involved in the ruckus. I had an eighth of skunk down my sock and had to ****ing eat it because I was convinced I was going down the cells for the night.
****s ****ing let me out 15 minutes later when it transpired i'd done **** all.
Suffice to say I was beelin' for about an hour, then I was really mangled obviously, but at no point did I cry.
Football fans are a bunch of ****s it has to be said
****s ****ing let me out 15 minutes later when it transpired i'd done **** all.
Suffice to say I was beelin' for about an hour, then I was really mangled obviously, but at no point did I cry.
Football fans are a bunch of ****s it has to be said
It's a litany of failures in the courts.
Massively disproportionate and a huge waste of resources. They'll keep plugging away to make it stick and apply it across the board.
Disgusting really.
I once got arrested at uni for breaking a fight up that my idiot flat mate started, then when the cops arrived, they slung me in the back of the wagon on my own thinking I was involved in the ruckus. I had an eighth of skunk down my sock and had to ****ing eat it because I was convinced I was going down the cells for the night.
****s ****ing let me out 15 minutes later when it transpired i'd done **** all.
Suffice to say I was beelin' for about an hour, then I was really mangled obviously, but at no point did I cry.
Football fans are a bunch of ****s it has to be said
These procedures have been drawn out for months on end. People's lives and jobs affected. It's scandalous.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC73.html
This is an appeal to the high court against a decision to let off a Celtic fan for singing Roll of Honour. The decision was overturned.
[FONT="]"The sheriff correctly identified that to be struck at by section 1(1) behaviour must not only be such that a reasonable person would be likely to consider it offensive but it must also either be likely to incite public disorder or would be likely to incite public disorder. Because, on the evidence led, the sheriff considered that there was no proper basis for inferring that any person who might be incited to public disorder would have been able to tell that the respondent was singing about the hunger strikers and the IRA, in his opinion there was no proper basis for inferring that the respondent's behaviour was likely to incite public disorder and, accordingly, the submission of no case to answer fell to be upheld. We cannot agree with that conclusion. As the [/FONT][FONT="]advocate depute[/FONT][FONT="] argued, it is by no means clear why the sheriff came to the view that he did on the evidence.[/FONT]"
[FONT="]Two police officers had given evidence that they recognised the song and heard certain of the words sung. As the advocate depute argued, if the police officers were able to recognise the song and hear the words, other persons must also have been able to do so. The sheriff appears to have adopted the view that the only candidates as persons likely to be incited to public disorder were the (apparently unperturbed) Ross County supporters. Why other persons might not be candidates, including persons standing close to or even among the "majority of the Celtic supporters housed in the north stand" is not explained by the sheriff. However, be that as it may, the sheriff does not appear to have considered the effect of section 1(5). That subsection provides that for the purposes of section 1(1)(b)(ii), behaviour "would be likely to incite public disorder" if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that either measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers. Thus, the Act distinguishes between, on the one hand, "a reasonable person" and, on the other, a person "likely to be incited to public disorder". It may be that a person likely to be incited to public disorder is of a more volatile temperament than a reasonable person or, to use the language of the sheriff, an uninitiated member of the public. The person likely to be incited to public disorder may have particular interests and particular knowledge. He may have particular views about the two songs in question or those who sing them. As section 1(5)(b) provides that such persons need not be present for the purposes of determining whether specific behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder, it cannot be relevant to the question as to whether there has been a contravention of section 1(1)(b) that particular persons in a football ground could not actually hear the words being sung. In other words the actual context within which the behaviour occurs is not determinative. Where behaviour falls within any of the categories specified in section 1(2) it is sufficient for conviction that persons likely to be incited to public disorder would be likely to be incited to public disorder by the particular behaviour, whether or not they were present in sufficient numbers and whether or not they were subject to measures put in place to prevent public disorder. As it does not matter whether persons likely to be incited to public disorder are there in sufficient numbers or are there at all it cannot matter whether or not the persons who are present (whether likely to be incited to public disorder or otherwise) actually became aware of the relevant behaviour. [/FONT]
This is an appeal to the high court against a decision to let off a Celtic fan for singing Roll of Honour. The decision was overturned.
[FONT="]"The sheriff correctly identified that to be struck at by section 1(1) behaviour must not only be such that a reasonable person would be likely to consider it offensive but it must also either be likely to incite public disorder or would be likely to incite public disorder. Because, on the evidence led, the sheriff considered that there was no proper basis for inferring that any person who might be incited to public disorder would have been able to tell that the respondent was singing about the hunger strikers and the IRA, in his opinion there was no proper basis for inferring that the respondent's behaviour was likely to incite public disorder and, accordingly, the submission of no case to answer fell to be upheld. We cannot agree with that conclusion. As the [/FONT][FONT="]advocate depute[/FONT][FONT="] argued, it is by no means clear why the sheriff came to the view that he did on the evidence.[/FONT]"
[FONT="]Two police officers had given evidence that they recognised the song and heard certain of the words sung. As the advocate depute argued, if the police officers were able to recognise the song and hear the words, other persons must also have been able to do so. The sheriff appears to have adopted the view that the only candidates as persons likely to be incited to public disorder were the (apparently unperturbed) Ross County supporters. Why other persons might not be candidates, including persons standing close to or even among the "majority of the Celtic supporters housed in the north stand" is not explained by the sheriff. However, be that as it may, the sheriff does not appear to have considered the effect of section 1(5). That subsection provides that for the purposes of section 1(1)(b)(ii), behaviour "would be likely to incite public disorder" if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that either measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers. Thus, the Act distinguishes between, on the one hand, "a reasonable person" and, on the other, a person "likely to be incited to public disorder". It may be that a person likely to be incited to public disorder is of a more volatile temperament than a reasonable person or, to use the language of the sheriff, an uninitiated member of the public. The person likely to be incited to public disorder may have particular interests and particular knowledge. He may have particular views about the two songs in question or those who sing them. As section 1(5)(b) provides that such persons need not be present for the purposes of determining whether specific behaviour would be likely to incite public disorder, it cannot be relevant to the question as to whether there has been a contravention of section 1(1)(b) that particular persons in a football ground could not actually hear the words being sung. In other words the actual context within which the behaviour occurs is not determinative. Where behaviour falls within any of the categories specified in section 1(2) it is sufficient for conviction that persons likely to be incited to public disorder would be likely to be incited to public disorder by the particular behaviour, whether or not they were present in sufficient numbers and whether or not they were subject to measures put in place to prevent public disorder. As it does not matter whether persons likely to be incited to public disorder are there in sufficient numbers or are there at all it cannot matter whether or not the persons who are present (whether likely to be incited to public disorder or otherwise) actually became aware of the relevant behaviour. [/FONT]
Even though the Sheriff at the original trial let him off he did say this:
The sheriff's reasoning
[6] In explaining why he had upheld the submission on behalf of the respondent that he had no case to answer, the sheriff began by noting that there were two elements to an offence under section 1(1) of the 2012 Act where, as in the present case, the Crown has led evidence of events related to a regulated football match. The Crown must first prove, as is provided by section 1(1)(a), that the accused had engaged in behaviour of a kind described in section 1(2). In this case, the Crown sought to prove that the respondent had been guilty of behaviour such as is described in subsection 1(2)(e), that is behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.
The sheriff took the view that in this case the Crown had led evidence which, taken at its highest, was sufficient to prove that the respondent had as a matter of fact sung songs the words of which expressed praise for Irish hunger strikers and contained a line about joining the IRA. He also took the view that it was conceivable that a reasonable person would consider it offensive if he were to hear such words in the course of trying to watch a football match between two Scottish football clubs on a Saturday afternoon in Dingwall.
The sheriff's reasoning
[6] In explaining why he had upheld the submission on behalf of the respondent that he had no case to answer, the sheriff began by noting that there were two elements to an offence under section 1(1) of the 2012 Act where, as in the present case, the Crown has led evidence of events related to a regulated football match. The Crown must first prove, as is provided by section 1(1)(a), that the accused had engaged in behaviour of a kind described in section 1(2). In this case, the Crown sought to prove that the respondent had been guilty of behaviour such as is described in subsection 1(2)(e), that is behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.
The sheriff took the view that in this case the Crown had led evidence which, taken at its highest, was sufficient to prove that the respondent had as a matter of fact sung songs the words of which expressed praise for Irish hunger strikers and contained a line about joining the IRA. He also took the view that it was conceivable that a reasonable person would consider it offensive if he were to hear such words in the course of trying to watch a football match between two Scottish football clubs on a Saturday afternoon in Dingwall.
It is about the troubles in N.Ireland and their fight for independence just like the Scottish national anthem.
I am aware of that judgement. An absolute disgrace and was the mechanism to which I was referring to try and apply criminality across the board.
We are talking about the Roll of Honour here Dev. The bits you have emboldened are not about that song.several cases have since failed on RoH specifically.
- Status