The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Act.

[Chris G Whyte]

From the smacking thread, as football supporters, we might want to discuss this. But I'll quickly answer a couple of questions from previous:

I'm no being funny, but a "wings of Scotland poll"? Come on!!

Wings Over Scotland only commissions the poll - they don't conduct it. In short, the website pays for the poll to be conducted, selects the questions and franchises, and the polling studio (in this case, Panelbase) conducts it with their base of respondents.

I'm not sure if you're aware but the situation i quoted is not guff spouted by the media, its actual fact as i know the person it happened to. There's quite a few hibbys that have been arrested under this joke of an act.

Prosecutions for the act are actually quite robust. As a result, my suspicion is that the hibbies you're talking about were either:

a) Engaging in exactly the type of behaviour we want rid of, so were prosecuted accordingly.
b) Were prosecuted for something else, but claimed innocence and used the OBFA as a patsy.

That's just me speculating, of course. Not knowing the individual cases you're talking about, I could be wrong - but the conviction numbers are roughly in line with what you'd expect, and you don't get a criminal record if you're not found guilty of breaking the law.

Other polls saying the exact opposite...recent parliamentary consultation exercises on it delivered This?

Red Card: Over 70% want to scrap offensive behaviour law in consultation | CommonSpace

That wasn't a poll, it was a laughably partisan "consultation" that was carried out on behalf of Scottish Labour by Rangers-supporting Labour idiot, James Kelly. Stuart Campbell points out why it's utter bollocks, here.

Properly conducted polls, as is the case with Panelbase, make it clear - the public overwhelmingly supports the OBFA, and there's really no argument to be had on that score.

But what of the act?

Is it appropriate?

In my view, yes. Of course it is. We want rid of sectarian attitudes and violence because it's a fucking stain on Scotland. It's a problem general to the centre of the country, particular to the west coast, and specific to one football club. I would only support its repeal if the SFA/SPFL adopted 'Strict Liability', but we know they won't because of their determination to protect the aforementioned club.

 

[SKII]

Im off to Hampden, ironically, but the many incidents Wannabe refers to relate to this act being used to pursue Hibs fans for anything but the behaviour you think it is working successfully against.

I'm sure that this will be explained in full by others affected by the act. Dont sit waiting for those rsponses though given its semi final day.

I am off to Hampden now. Will return to this at some point but not today. Just Back will be my only priority.

 

[Purple & Green]

The act doesn’t work because I would suggest that there is an agenda by public bodies to stop it from working effectively.

My view is that we need to pressure politicians to make it work - you do the work of the bigots by targeting the act, and the bigots of one club largely are ultimately the real issue that needs targeted.

 

[SKII]

The act doesn’t work because I would suggest that there is an agenda by public bodies to stop it from working effectively.

My view is that we need to pressure politicians to make it work - you do the work of the bigots by targeting the act, and the bigots of one club largely are ultimately the real issue that needs targeted.

B, why do you think the Greens want it repealed? What would their agenda be?

One of the issues many against it appear to have with it seems to be that what is deemed offensive is subjective. So the likes of the The Rangers fans have managed to use it to turn the word describing Attila from Central Europe into a sectarian term. It is nothing of the sort for most people, it is merely used to describe the barbarian like behaviours of those it is most often attributed to. At Mordor earlier this season as we waited to be allowed to go to our cars, I witnessed a Hibs fan who was talking in a friendly manner with a The Rangers fan across the police cordon being warned for the use of this word in relation to his pal. Polisman asked Hibs fan to stop talking to the The Rangers fan. Hibs fans says to the Polisman, "It's alright, pal. He's ma pal. He might be an *Attila* but he is ma pal and a good *Attila*". Polisman says, "Sir, can I advise you that you are in danger of being in breach of the OFB Act and you should desist from using that language immediately or I will be forced to take action".

Two other polismen shuffled their feet and looked in the other direction. It would seem that they don't know themselves what is what when it comes to this.

All this outside a stadium where we had witnessed thousands of people singing about being up to their knees in you know what.

How many convictions have been successful with regards to our own club's supporters? I'm sure I read an article breaking down the offences by club and, surprise, surprise, the bulk of the successful convictions were not where you would think it should be. I am going to have a rummage and see if I can find it. A lot of links to this seem to have been removed from the internet though. Especially the case of Adam Richmond, the Partick fan found guilty of breaking the law when he sang a fairly common song mocking the bigotry of the old firm but the judge refused to give him a criminal record saying that technically an offence was committed but that he was an example of someone the legislation was not intended for - and that he was dismayed it had come to court. I will see if I can find it tomorrow.

 

[Purple & Green]

Use google.com.au - the results don’t disappear

 

[Purple & Green]

B, why do you think the Greens want it repealed? What would their agenda be?

One of the issues many against it appear to have with it seems to be that what is deemed offensive is subjective. So the likes of the The Rangers fans have managed to use it to turn the word describing Attila from Central Europe into a sectarian term. It is nothing of the sort for most people, it is merely used to describe the barbarian like behaviours of those it is most often attributed to. At Mordor earlier this season as we waited to be allowed to go to our cars, I witnessed a Hibs fan who was talking in a friendly manner with a The Rangers fan across the police cordon being warned for the use of this word in relation to his pal. Polisman asked Hibs fan to stop talking to the The Rangers fan. Hibs fans says to the Polisman, "It's alright, pal. He's ma pal. He might be an *Attila* but he is ma pal and a good *Attila*". Polisman says, "Sir, can I advise you that you are in danger of being in breach of the OFB Act and you should desist from using that language immediately or I will be forced to take action".

Two other polismen shuffled their feet and looked in the other direction. It would seem that they don't know themselves what is what when it comes to this.

All this outside a stadium where we had witnessed thousands of people singing about being up to their knees in you know what.

How many convictions have been successful with regards to our own club's supporters? I'm sure I read an article breaking down the offences by club and, surprise, surprise, the bulk of the successful convictions were not where you would think it should be. I am going to have a rummage and see if I can find it. A lot of links to this seem to have been removed from the internet though. Especially the case of Adam Richmond, the Partick fan found guilty of breaking the law when he sang a fairly common song mocking the bigotry of the old firm but the judge refused to give him a criminal record saying that technically an offence was committed but that he was an example of someone the legislation was not intended for - and that he was dismayed it had come to court. I will see if I can find it tomorrow.

Frankly, the greens are nuts:

Ending sectarianism. There is no place for sectarianism in Scottish football, however Scottish Greens believe that the Offensive Behaviour in Football Act (2012) unnecessarily restricts freedom of expression and is not the most effective means of addressing these concerns. We support the repeal of the Act and instead would support fans to take action against sectarianism in their own clubs through fan ownership.

There clearly is issues with the legislation, but only in so far as it hadn’t made things better at the cess pit of a club in Glasgow. So, fix the legislation would be my view until it does drag that club into 21st century Scotland.

 

[SKII]

Frankly, the greens are nuts:

There clearly is issues with the legislation, but only in so far as it hadn’t made things better at the cess pit of a club in Glasgow. So, fix the legislation would be my view until it does drag that club into 21st century Scotland.

I think that many of the people opposing it in its current form believe it can be tackled in different ways, in a legal sense? The Law Society and The Police Federation have published a few pieces on the technicalities of it all.

 

[Purple & Green]

I think that many of the people opposing it in its current form believe it can be tackled in different ways, in a legal sense? The Law Society and The Police Federation have published a few pieces on the technicalities of it all.

I’ll have to look into what they’ve published, because my take is that the new law didn’t create anything new that couldn’t have been tackled by existing legislation.

But the existing legislation didn’t tackle the problem, so a new approach was tried. It’s not worked, so we need adjustments. Sounds like a subject worthy of a bounce campaign.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

And what is their "base of respondents"? [MENTION=10313]Zellviren[/MENTION]

Look it up, bud.

 

[SKII]

Cheers for that. Doubt there's many fitba fans within that survey group, probably bored housewives or retirees with time on their hands. Asking folk who it may affect would be a better survey.

They have to sample from every age group, both genders equally, every sociodemographic group. So, a lot of people not too concerned with how it works or whether it does? Youd be hard pushed to find most normal people disagreeing with the sentiment behind the act?

The WoS gadgie maintains that Liverpool fans killed their own supporters at Hillsborough and calls them murdering ****s. Fairly interesting insight into his awareness of football fans generally. And we need to bear in mind this is a football related law and doesnt affect other sports.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

They have to sample from every age group, both genders equally, every sociodemographic group. So, a lot of people not too concerned with how it works or whether it does? Youd be hard pushed to find most normal people disagreeing with the sentiment behind the act?

He actually reviews how only football supporters view the act. It's 2:1 in favour of retention, with only "Rangers" supporters any different - and they're evenly split, despite being the most obvious target of the law.

 

[SKII]

He actually reviews how only football supporters view the act. It's 2:1 in favour of retention, with only "Rangers" supporters any different - and they're evenly split, despite being the most obvious target of the law.

It is a sample of 500 football fans.

Of the roughly 1000 respondents to the overall survey only half had any football interest.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

It is a sample of 500 football fans.

Of the roughly 1000 respondents to the overall survey only half had any football interest.

Of course.

But it's still an awful lot better than James Kelly sending rigged questions to Celtic and "Rangers" supporters' clubs.

 

[SKII]

Of course.

But it's still an awful lot better than James Kelly sending rigged questions to Celtic and "Rangers" supporters' clubs.

The 500 fans asked hardly equates to the very confident assertion the polls are beyond question though, let's be honest.

33 organisations and over 3500 individuals participated in the political consultation process. A 50 page document was produced including feedback from as varied and valid parties such as The Law Commission, local authorities and tbe Scottish Football Supporters Association. It isnt as partizan or skewed as WoS portray. But then its not surprising given the track record re Hillsborough and other issues.

Of course it will have attracted some parties with a vested interest to respond. In a democracy thats allowed. We might not like what they say but we lose the high ground if we play the man and not the ball.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the feedback document. There's also keech. Surely, we want to learn from the good stuff?

And the concerns many Hibs fans feel after the use of the Act in the aftermath of the Scottish Cup Final should be listened to. The 500 person poll won't shed full light on that, I suspect.

Can't post the 50 page doc from my phone but will do so when i get in from work and can access my computer. I am sure anyone interested in it will find aspects of it interesting...

 

[St.Anne's]

It's highly unlikely that more than 10% of the population of ANY country in history has EVER supported freedom of speech.
Fortunately for what became "The West", the very small minority of Europe's population that espoused Enlightenment culture - and who were willing to fight for it and to suffer enormous hardship to win it - were intelligent enough to overcome the majority.
I doubt there's anyone on here in the group of less than 10%... & there's certainly nobody from that minority in the S.N.P.
I'd imagine one could fit the number of people in Scotland who understand the principles of Enlightenment culture and freedom of speech inside Hampden Park... where the "right-thinking" community, exemplified by the likes of Sheriff Paul Crozier, could have them machine-gunned.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

It isnt as partizan or skewed as WoS portray. But then its not surprising given the track record re Hillsborough and other issues.

I agree, but...

We might not like what they say but we lose the high ground if we play the man and not the ball.

You probably shouldn't have followed with that.

The consultation was laughably partisan. Laughably. It was wholly unfiltered and unweighted, sent deliberately to people who would oppose the act, and even the questions contained within it were contradictory which meant contradictory responses were received from people. It was a completely meaningless addition to the debate. On the other hand, a 1,000 person poll conducted by a neutral studio that was properly weighted, did take into account social demographics, and didn't prioritise groups that were highly likely to want the act repealed, is substantially more significant; particularly given that other pollsters (YouGov is the other main one I can remember) draw the same conclusion.

The act is popular with the Scottish people, because they know what it's designed to do. Repealing it will be seen for exactly what it is; a craven admission that the government shouldn't do anything about our very particular sectarian problem when the SFA/SPFL won't.

Can I be honest with you? I find it absolutely remarkable that an otherwise intelligent person thinks we should be scrapping a law that's designed to target bigotry that each and every one of us despises. Arguing that the law isn't perfect, so we should scrap it, is the exact same argument President Trump is currently making about the Affordable Care Act. It's obviously ludicrous.

If something isn't right, you fix it. You don't abandon it. Abandoning it sends a negative message to everyone except those who want to sing about being 'up to their knees in Fenian blood'.

 

[St.Anne's]

Am I on Hibsnet by mistake?

Strewth!
It's a savage indictment of The Powers That Be in almost any society if they can't drum-up 90%+ support in a plebiscite proposing that Nasty Evil People Not At All Like Us should be legally banned from spewing their heretical/blasphemous/seditious/offensive bile... & that the "Right-Thinking" majority can't manage that in an isolated, monocultural backwater such as Scotland is comical.
A significant percentage of the population should go to live in a society where the type of power this disgraceful piece of legislation gives the government has always been the norm.
Sadly, those people will transform Scotland into just such a utopian paradise, without the need to move to another society ever inconveniencing their cossetted - and almost certainly stipendiary - existence.

 

[1875]

Zellriven, I think you are missing the point, non old firm fans are against the bill because it is not being used to target the real problem, the 40,000 plus home and 1000's away Huns that sing their bile every single week without sanction, and the 2 or 3000 Green Brigaders that still sing songs in praise of the IRA and its ilk. There is also the Gorgie Derry as heard at Easter Road teh other week too. FUCK ALL DONE.

But lift a laddie for giving a hun player the finger on the greatest day in Hibernian FC's history, losing him his job and career in a fit of intolerant pique.

They are shite bags, politicians of whichever hue will not deal with the rampant bigotry oozing out of the hunnery and trickling out of one corner of Celtic Park. That is my issue with the bill.

Oh aye, it all started when fat Ally made a remark to our current manager Neil Lennon after a Glasgow derby. I would love to know what he really said to have Lenny react the way he did.

The act, along with the cowardly way the SNP have dealt with the Catalan situation will see me and many others leave the SNP.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

Zellriven, I think you are missing the point, non old firm fans are against the bill because it is not being used to target the real problem, the 40,000 plus home and 1000's away Huns that sing their bile every single week without sanction, and the 2 or 3000 Green Brigaders that still sing songs in praise of the IRA and its ilk. There is also the Gorgie Derry as heard at Easter Road teh other week too. FUCK ALL DONE.

I don't think I'm missing the point, but I sympathise with what you're saying here.

It's generous of me to say that sectarianism is a problem in Scotland, when it's peculiar to the central-west coast and specific to one football stadium. I would imagine that most people in Scotland who think of sectarianism understand that. The problem is that it's such an institutionalised part of the aforementioned city, it's inexorably tied to the governance of it. Why is marching season still allowed? I just can't fathom it. I understand, quite explicitly, what the Orange Order stands for and represents; so do you, I expect. And sadly, we know the SFA/SPFL won't bring Strict Liability into the mix, because they run our game on behalf of those most likely to be impacted by those rules. It's equally no coincidence that our "elected representatives" (Fraser and Tomkins can barely be considered elected) are against the bill, given that they're happy to spread sectarian views publicly by including places like the infamous Louden Tavern in their social media messages. This is quite aside from the bevy of bigots that are in the Scottish Conservative party, and that Colonel Davidson is allowed to lie on national TV about rehabilitating.

There's nobody who habitually goes to the football in Scotland who doesn't understand all of this.

It's also no exaggeration to point out that there are large swathes of Scotland where people are utterly confused by the entire spectacle. It's just not part of Scottish life as they understand it, and they can't fathom (as we can't) why the Scottish football authorities don't seem to want to do anything about the spikes in alcohol-fuelled or domestic violence whenever the Old Firm play one another.

But if I can break with my point...

One of the dissertations I wrote for my organisation was to do with combating sectarianism by treating it as radicalisation. There are a great many individual similarities between indoctrination into Islamic fundamentalism and indoctrination into anti-Catholic sentiment, not least of which is the aggressive stance taken toward those "not of the faith", the socio-economic background most bigots hail from, and the belief that one can be martyred for "the cause" (literally or figuratively). Once radicalised, behavioural patterns are remarkably similar.

What I'm saying is that I understand your point acutely, and accept that there are problems with a law that can't bust a few thousand bigots who are all at it. But repealing a law that at least provides some deterrent, much less one that has such wide public support, is absolutely the wrong message to send if your intent is to combat sectarianism. As it turns out, one of my conclusions from the paper I referenced was that laws against sectarianism that see those prosecuted hit with either a custodial sentence or community service are extremely unlikely to have any impact, given that rehabilitation is extremely difficult amongst radicalised individuals.

But lift a laddie for giving a hun player the finger on the greatest day in Hibernian FC's history, losing him his job and career in a fit of intolerant pique.

To whom are you referring? I'm pretty sure you don't lose your job or career if you're lifted and not prosecuted. If the individual you're referencing was prosecuted, then I'm pretty sure he was doing more than giving a "hun the finger".

 

[St.Anne's]

MiggsNet right now.

Someone has started a "left-wing/right-wing soccer clubs" thread on the forum for our deranged onanists. AS Roma are right-wing - I'll just go on FB and inform a couple of Italian Communist acquaintances who follow a club in the Eternal City of that. All Russian clubs are also right-wing, especially those whose fans idolise Stalin. The Huns are right-wing too. Northern English clubs are left-wing. Airdrie might be left-wing also, as Socialist firebrand John Reid was the local MP for ages. The club of which he was chairman is seemingly not genuinely left-wing. I can see George Galloway having someone prosecuted for libellously posting such a canard, probably under a piece of legislation similar to the one that's spawned this thread.St.Pauli seem to be the only left-wing soccer club.We are simply "Bohemian". Apart from that slip of the tongue, nobody's mentioned the other club I follow, which is toe-curlingly PC (until Shamrock Rovers pitch up at Dalyer).

 

[1875]

I don't think I'm missing the point, but I sympathise with what you're saying here.

It's generous of me to say that sectarianism is a problem in Scotland, when it's peculiar to the central-west coast and specific to one football stadium. I would imagine that most people in Scotland who think of sectarianism understand that. The problem is that it's such an institutionalised part of the aforementioned city, it's inexorably tied to the governance of it. Why is marching season still allowed? I just can't fathom it. I understand, quite explicitly, what the Orange Order stands for and represents; so do you, I expect. And sadly, we know the SFA/SPFL won't bring Strict Liability into the mix, because they run our game on behalf of those most likely to be impacted by those rules. It's equally no coincidence that our "elected representatives" (Fraser and Tomkins can barely be considered elected) are against the bill, given that they're happy to spread sectarian views publicly by including places like the infamous Louden Tavern in their social media messages. This is quite aside from the bevy of bigots that are in the Scottish Conservative party, and that Colonel Davidson is allowed to lie on national TV about rehabilitating.

There's nobody who habitually goes to the football in Scotland who doesn't understand all of this.

It's also no exaggeration to point out that there are large swathes of Scotland where people are utterly confused by the entire spectacle. It's just not part of Scottish life as they understand it, and they can't fathom (as we can't) why the Scottish football authorities don't seem to want to do anything about the spikes in alcohol-fuelled or domestic violence whenever the Old Firm play one another.

But if I can break with my point...

One of the dissertations I wrote for my organisation was to do with combating sectarianism by treating it as radicalisation. There are a great many individual similarities between indoctrination into Islamic fundamentalism and indoctrination into anti-Catholic sentiment, not least of which is the aggressive stance taken toward those "not of the faith", the socio-economic background most bigots hail from, and the belief that one can be martyred for "the cause" (literally or figuratively). Once radicalised, behavioural patterns are remarkably similar.

What I'm saying is that I understand your point acutely, and accept that there are problems with a law that can't bust a few thousand bigots who are all at it. But repealing a law that at least provides some deterrent, much less one that has such wide public support, is absolutely the wrong message to send if your intent is to combat sectarianism. As it turns out, one of my conclusions from the paper I referenced was that laws against sectarianism that see those prosecuted hit with either a custodial sentence or community service are extremely unlikely to have any impact, given that rehabilitation is extremely difficult amongst radicalised individuals.


To whom are you referring? I'm pretty sure you don't lose your job or career if you're lifted and not prosecuted. If the individual you're referencing was prosecuted, then I'm pretty sure he was doing more than giving a "hun the finger".

If you dont know, you are 'not on the ground ' as much as you think, we have witnessed trial by media of exuberant Hibs fans since that glorious day, nae political or religious bigotry, just a dislike of the huns and a feeling of exuberance none of us might feel again in our fitba lifes, whilst hateful bigots can be up to their knees in fenian blood whilst roman catholics are supposed to surrender or die every week. FUCK ALL DONE.

A bill dealing with religious and cultural bigotry in Scotland that deals with Scotland's great elehun in the room that is actually properly enforced is what we need, no a shitey reactive bill hand picking fitba fans for police action for calling huns huns, or giving GIRUY hand signals to folk giving ye GIRUY hand signals back.

Its not a popular bill, your average Joe outside of football fans cares not a jot, it is being used by police scotland to lift normal fans whilst they stand by and do nothing about songs about sad fenian bastards, lorry loads of volunteers, the gorgie boys and up to their knees in fenian blood being sung at fitba matches. The huns are worst, say what you will its no a couple of thousand its 10's of thousands every second week. FUCK ALL DONE.

 

[tricky]

Zellriven, I think you are missing the point, non old firm fans are against the bill because it is not being used to target the real problem, the 40,000 plus home and 1000's away Huns that sing their bile every single week without sanction, and the 2 or 3000 Green Brigaders that still sing songs in praise of the IRA and its ilk. .

naive to suggest only 2 or 3000 Celtic fans in total indulge in or support the songs supporting the IRA imo, vast majority of their support complicit.

 

[1875]

naive to suggest only 2 or 3000 Celtic fans in total indulge in or support the songs supporting the IRA imo, vast majority of their support complicit.

I am not naive, I disagree with the 'vast majority' comment you make. In what way are they complicit? Did you hear one, just one sectarian song sung by the majority of Celtic fans when we played them at Parkhead or at Hampden in the last month? I didn't? As for support the songs, I have no idea what that means?

 

[tricky]

I am not naive, I disagree with the 'vast majority' comment you make. In what way are they complicit? Did you hear one, just one sectarian song sung by the majority of Celtic fans when we played them at Parkhead or at Hampden in the last month? I didn't? As for support the songs, I have no idea what that means?

I think that more than 2 or 3000 Celtic fans still regularly sing songs in support of the IRA on a regular basis home and away which was the number you quoted as doing so.

suppose I could have said vast majority of their away support in particular are complicit although noticed on the recent walk from Parkhead Forge to the Hibs end the term 'Up the Ra' was used as a standard term of greeting among many of the unwashed in the streets.

I agree that the Huns are worse.

 

[1875]

I think that more than 2 or 3000 Celtic fans still regularly sing songs in support of the IRA on a regular basis home and away which was the number you quoted as doing so.

suppose I could have said vast majority of their away support in particular are complicit although noticed on the recent walk from Parkhead Forge to the Hibs end the term 'Up the Ra' was used as a standard term of greeting among many of the unwashed in the streets.

I agree that the Huns are worse.

I have never counted them but there around 2500 green brigadiers I think, even if it's double, it's no 40+000 singing. I also think what people do away from football is a different thing. This act is about the fitba. I may be wrong but it may be mo charaid (sp?) you heard, it's now regularly used by Celtic fans and nationalists.

 

[paigntonhibby]

F##k the soapies and the Huns, they feed off each other's intolerance and bigotry. The only club whose crowds dropped during the rangers fiasco was Celtic.Says it all really. And the two clubs fans who should have been most affected by the act carry on their offensive behaviour with impunity. Only in Scotland.

 

[Chris G Whyte]

Its not a popular bill, your average Joe outside of football fans cares not a jot, it is being used by police scotland to lift normal fans whilst they stand by and do nothing about songs about sad fenian bastards, lorry loads of volunteers, the gorgie boys and up to their knees in fenian blood being sung at fitba matches. The huns are worst, say what you will its no a couple of thousand its 10's of thousands every second week. FUCK ALL DONE.

Right, there are two points here:

1) The act isn't popular.

All we can really go off is properly weighted polls, and they suggest the act is popular and that the average Joe doesn't want it repealed. The average Joe seems clear on what it's supposed to do, but...

2) Does the act do what it's supposed to do?

I think this is where your frustration really sits. Because we keep referencing one hibbie in particular, and nobody seems willing to name him, I can only assume we're talking about Greg Binnie; who was nineteen at the time, and fits the description of "giving the hun keeper a GIRUY finger". From what I can gather from the source linked, and others, he was poorly represented - he pleaded guilty to the charge, which means he was easy to prosecute. The act itself is a bit more specific than some suggest, and doesn't cover flipping off Wed Foderingham.

But I did a bit more digging, just to figure out who's being lifted. Here are some numbers from the Scottish government, specifically related to the Scottish Cup Final where Binnie was arrested:

- In 16/17, there were 377 charges.
- 140 charges were from the Scottish Cup final.
- All 140 charges were from Section 1 of the act.
- The main clubs were "Rangers" with 110 charges (29%), and Hibs with 101 charges (27%).
- The Scottish Cup final saw 75 charges for Hibs, and 60 for "Rangers".
- Taking out the final, the charge order by club would be Celtic (60), "Rangers" (50), Hibs (26) and Hearts (17).

Straight off the bat, we run into a number of problems. To me, it's absolutely unfathomable that Celtic are more guilty than "Rangers". This is an old report, but almost two thirds of sectarian incidents investigated by the police were anti-Catholic and "Rangers" have even been busted by UEFA for their fans' behaviour. It's equally unfathomable that Hibs supporters were hit more at the Scottish Cup final, given the flares from the "Rangers" end and the consistent renditions of the Billy Boys.

From all of this, we could perhaps logically conclude (though, tentatively because we can't be sure without all of the data) that the act is popular because the general population believes it does something that it doesn't actually achieve. The real problem with sectarianism in Scotland remains largely untackled because the act is not squarely aimed at where it's genuinely needed. Namely, at those who follow "Rangers" and, particularly, from Ibrox.

 

[St.Anne's]

Stokesy Poppy Thread...

...Probably about to start on the "Other Forum":laff:
I should dig out the ancient thread of self-righteous indignation when Stokesy attended IRA man Alan Ryan's funeral and post a link. Just to wind them up.:laff:
I wonder what Polis Scotland's line on poppies offending folk might be.

 

[1875]

Right, there are two points here:

1) The act isn't popular.

All we can really go off is properly weighted polls, and they suggest the act is popular and that the average Joe doesn't want it repealed. The average Joe seems clear on what it's supposed to do, but....

Is the average joe a football fan or an old granny who gets her news from the Daily Mail/ Express/ Scotsman and never been near a fitba match in their life? Did they give a breakdown of how many average joe's went to football regularly?

 

[Chris G Whyte]

Is the average joe a football fan or an old granny who gets her news from the Daily Mail/ Express/ Scotsman and never been near a fitba match in their life? Did they give a breakdown of how many average joe's went to football regularly?

The answer to this question is already on this thread.

 

[1875]

Look it up, bud.

I reread the thread, were the respondents based in Scotland?

 

[Chris G Whyte]

I reread the thread, were the respondents based in Scotland?

For the PanelBase poll, yes.

 

[St.Anne's]

Jags: "Not The Sort Of Peeple..."

I notice a Partick Thistle ned was hoyed out of Greyskull yesterday for waving a saltire:laff::laff:

I was under the impression that Partick fans were immune from prosecution, just like the majority of "right-minded" citizens on this thread, as they are "Not The Sort Of People" these laws were framed to deal with.

(I'll bet the wee beggar was warned several times about waving it, but such information would spoil the story)

 

[paigntonhibby]

I notice a Partick Thistle ned was hoyed out of Greyskull yesterday for waving a saltire:laff::laff:

I was under the impression that Partick fans were immune from prosecution, just like the majority of "right-minded" citizens on this thread, as they are "Not The Sort Of People" these laws were framed to deal with.

(I'll bet the wee beggar was warned several times about waving it, but such information would spoil the story)

i might have missed something or its just gone "WHOOSH"right ower ma heid but i dinnae get if yer being sarcastic or no' ,but i cannae see that waving yer ain countrys' flag in yer ain country is a hoyable offence, unlike the gruesome twosome that consistently wave foreign flags in our country

 

[tricky]

I notice a Partick Thistle ned was hoyed out of Greyskull yesterday for waving a saltire:laff::laff:

(I'll bet the wee beggar was warned several times about waving it, but such information would spoil the story)

Why would he have been warned?

Might be missing something but your post seems a bit odd.

 

[SKII]

Why would he have been warned?

Might be missing something but your post seems a bit odd.

Think this is the incident...

Thistle Fan Claims He Was Ejected From Ibrox For Holding

 

[Beagle]

Apparently it was a saltire with Aye across it, one of those pro referendum ones. Hun stewards decided it was political as per UEFA guidelines. They were confiscating it until the fans all kicked off so chucked them out

 

[beefy]

Apparently it was a saltire with Aye across it, one of those pro referendum ones. Hun stewards decided it was political as per UEFA guidelines. They were confiscating it until the fans all kicked off so chucked them out

They don't like the word "Aye". Mind they used to go 'Aye ready' until they realised that the word "Aye "wisnae even on there shirts but.. Och..they were Ready anyways" AYE an' you'll ken aboot it pal". But like the nae one likes us we don't care song that nobody cares about except them so they throw peeps oot.

For the biggest bully's in Scottish fitba, they really are the biggest saps in our land.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Westside Green]

Why would he have been warned?

Might be missing something but your post seems a bit odd.

He would have been warned by those impartial volunteer huns masquerading as stewards.

 

[St.Anne's]

Dean Shiels

A couple of Falkirk neds up for a "cyclops" remark to our former winger. Cue "shocked and appalled" thread on MiggsNet.
Seriously, there must be thousands of Hibs fans who've heard similar comments at Easter Road and Ibrox when he was playing for the Huns. Not to the lad's face - and that does make a difference - but the indignation over there is comical.
I was at a St.Mirren game on "Kick it Out" day a few years back. Feckin' awful 0-0 draw under Mixu. We took a fair few for some reason. I might have been the only c*** in the stand who did not hold up the tokenist and side-splittingly conscience-salving "Show Racism the Red Card" leaflet that was placed on our seats. Anti-racism? In Paisley? Greater Glasgow has more pressing problems on the cliquist bigotry front than "racism" and I didn't see one black person in Paisley all day. I do remember the Herald sports section leading on the campaign. Pictures of Rangers players in anti-bigotry T-shirts were all over its pages. At the end of the game, there was an altercation by the tunnel when Shiels tried to have a square go with someone who made a comment about his missing eye. That summed-up the mindless hypocrisy of all the "anti-discrimination" guff we have to put up with. Yet, almost a decade on, MiggsNet's inhabitants are "shocked and appalled" and want all sorts of action taken.
Scotland really should become a republic.
With John Reid appointed President.:gaga:
Right, I'll feck off and restrict my contributions to the odds thread and threads of any games I manage to get up to see. I might get banned if I post any more unorthodox views on here.