Offensive Behaviour Act

[Ally Bongo]

Does anyone seriously believe that the three Unionist parties have the interests of football fans at heart ?

All 3 parties have taken advantage of religion keeping Scots divided for decades therefore it suits their long term agenda to keep that ongoing.

Thats whats going on here

Sectarianism is completely unacceptable and if following Rangers or Celtic can exacerbate it (which only a moon man would deny) then im all for the law.

Football fans would not be criminalised if they were not behaving in a sectarian manner.

If its what is judged as sectarianism thats the problem then that should be looked at - it shouldnt be thrown out completely  

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ally Bongo

[ErsatzThistle]

What are the SLab, SCon, SLib and Greens proposing instead ?

For years the churches, charities, voluntary organisations and trade unions said they wanted anti-sectarian legislation.

[Ally Bongo]

3 minutes ago, ErsatzThistle said:

What are the SLab, SCon, SLib and Greens proposing instead ?

For years the churches, charities, voluntary organisations and trade unions said they wanted anti-sectarian legislation.

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories want it scrapped

Harvie said on SP that he would rather see it amended

[Squirrelhumper]

It should be scrapped. It's a heap of shite. 

[Ally Bongo]

8 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

It should be scrapped. It's a heap of shite. 

Thanks for that input

Opinion polling conducted by Panelbase suggests that a clear majority of Scottish voters support the Act and its provisions. In May 2015, 60% of all respondents said they supported the Act - including 59% of self-identified "Rangers fans" and 64% of self-identified "Celtic fans" - with only 14% wanting it to be abolished

[Rossy]

The act itself is well-intentioned but poorly thought through, and was brought in mainly through pressure by the Catholic church (backed up heavily by Celtic FC), to stem sectarian singing by Rangers fans.

Ironically, Celtic fans are now the most vociferous against the act, because they never thought that it would apply to them.

The act should never have been necessary, if Scottish football was able to police itself. The SPFL and the SFA should be involved in penalising teams for the actions of their fans, and the buck should never have been passed to the Scottish government.

We all know though that both these organisations are far too cowardly to tackle the problem head on.

One threat from UEFA was all it took to (temporarily) change the behaviour of Rangers supporters. If the SPFL were to step in and deduct points from clubs for the sectarian behaviour of their fans, it would end in stadiums overnight.

I realise that of course though that they would have no jurisdiction outside of the stadiums.

[scotlad]

1 hour ago, Rossy said:

The act itself is well-intentioned but poorly thought through, and was brought in mainly through pressure by the Catholic church (backed up heavily by Celtic FC), to stem sectarian singing by Rangers fans.

Ironically, Celtic fans are now the most vociferous against the act, because they never thought that it would apply to them.

The act should never have been necessary, if Scottish football was able to police itself. The SPFL and the SFA should be involved in penalising teams for the actions of their fans, and the buck should never have been passed to the Scottish government.

We all know though that both these organisations are far too cowardly to tackle the problem head on.

One threat from UEFA was all it took to (temporarily) change the behaviour of Rangers supporters. If the SPFL were to step in and deduct points from clubs for the sectarian behaviour of their fans, it would end in stadiums overnight.

I realise that of course though that they would have no jurisdiction outside of the stadiums.

An excellent post, Rossy. Sums up my feelings perfectly. 

Fines and/or points deductions would be far more effective in dealing with the issue, and, since offensive singing tends to emenate disproportionately from supporters of  two teams who have dominated the Scottish game for decades, would also make our game more competitive.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, Rossy said:

The act itself is well-intentioned but poorly thought through, and was brought in mainly through pressure by the Catholic church (backed up heavily by Celtic FC), to stem sectarian singing by Rangers fans.

Ironically, Celtic fans are now the most vociferous against the act, because they never thought that it would apply to them.

The act should never have been necessary, if Scottish football was able to police itself. The SPFL and the SFA should be involved in penalising teams for the actions of their fans, and the buck should never have been passed to the Scottish government.

We all know though that both these organisations are far too cowardly to tackle the problem head on.

One threat from UEFA was all it took to (temporarily) change the behaviour of Rangers supporters. If the SPFL were to step in and deduct points from clubs for the sectarian behaviour of their fans, it would end in stadiums overnight.

I realise that of course though that they would have no jurisdiction outside of the stadiums.

I pretty much agree with you, but when criticising the SFA and SPFL for their inaction, remember that they are only the representatives of their members.

When the SFA/SPFL tried to introduce strict liability for domestic games it was voted down by the clubs - pretty sure it was virtually unanimous - UEFA have strict liability in respect of their games, that is why you see clubs punished for fans behaviour.

[Rossy]

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

I pretty much agree with you, but when criticising the SFA and SPFL for their inaction, remember that they are only the representatives of their members.

When the SFA/SPFL tried to introduce strict liability for domestic games it was voted down by the clubs - pretty sure it was virtually unanimous - UEFA have strict liability in respect of their games, that is why you see clubs punished for fans behaviour.

True, I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Ally Bongo]

Im almost certain James Kelly (Lab) is another that has been invented solely to destroy the Scottish Labour party from within

http://wingsoverscotland.com/james-kelly-is-a-liar/

 

[sbcmfc]

Celtic fans are against it, partly as they thought it would only apply to Rangers fans.

However, it allows you to be treated more harshly because you're a football fan, and they don't use it to tackle real trouble or offensive behaviour, they use it as an excuse to kettle 15 year old boys and knock doors down at 5am for setting off smoke bombs.

[aaid]

20 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

Celtic fans are against it, partly as they thought it would only apply to Rangers fans.

However, it allows you to be treated more harshly because you're a football fan, and they don't use it to tackle real trouble or offensive behaviour, they use it as an excuse to kettle 15 year old boys and knock doors down at 5am for setting off smoke bombs.

There's a lot of misinformation flung around in respect of the act itself and how Police Scotland have been policing football in Scotland recently.  I don't believe the act gives the police any new powers.  Kettering would be covered by a different bill - in England it's section 14 of the public order act, I don't know the equivalent Scots legislation - and that's been used widely for years both against football fans, protestors and "unruly" crowds.  Arresting people for smoke bombs is similarly covered by separate legislation. I don't think a smoke bomb can be considered offensive. 

Whether or not the police have used the act as an excuse to "get tough" with football fans is up for debate but any problem there is in police policy, not the act itself. 

 

[Rossy]

30 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

 

However, it allows you to be treated more harshly because you're a football fan, and they don't use it to tackle real trouble or offensive behaviour, they use it as an excuse to kettle 15 year old boys and knock doors down at 5am for setting off smoke bombs.

The police have been doing that for decades, even without this act.

 

[Stu101]

5 hours ago, Rossy said:

The act itself is well-intentioned but poorly thought through, and was brought in mainly through pressure by the Catholic church (backed up heavily by Celtic FC), to stem sectarian singing by Rangers fans.

Ironically, Celtic fans are now the most vociferous against the act, because they never thought that it would apply to them.

The act should never have been necessary, if Scottish football was able to police itself. The SPFL and the SFA should be involved in penalising teams for the actions of their fans, and the buck should never have been passed to the Scottish government.

We all know though that both these organisations are far too cowardly to tackle the problem head on.

One threat from UEFA was all it took to (temporarily) change the behaviour of Rangers supporters. If the SPFL were to step in and deduct points from clubs for the sectarian behaviour of their fans, it would end in stadiums overnight.

I realise that of course though that they would have no jurisdiction outside of the stadiums.

Spot on.

Add to this though that its possibly one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen drafted, so even what it tries to do- it doesn't do very well.

[biffer]

4 hours ago, aaid said:

I pretty much agree with you, but when criticising the SFA and SPFL for their inaction, remember that they are only the representatives of their members.

When the SFA/SPFL tried to introduce strict liability for domestic games it was voted down by the clubs - pretty sure it was virtually unanimous - UEFA have strict liability in respect of their games, that is why you see clubs punished for fans behaviour.

and if the clubs won't act as they should, the legislature has to step in. This is the fault of the clubs as a whole.

Harvie is right btw, it needs amended. If the greens choose to abstain in a vote to abolish it, then it stays. 

[Duncan Blackheart]

Irrespective of its arguably laudable aims, the Act is so poorly-drafted and ambiguous as to be practically useless. An example of how weak opposition often leads to poor quality legislation. 

Also, arguably, an example of why a bi-cameral legislature not elected wholly on party lines is desirable in Scotland. 

At the moment, that piece of legislation smacks of people sitting round a table all agreeing with each other who view outside scrutiny as a trifling matter to be swatted aside, as opposed to a potentially valuable and helpful necessity to produce the positive and practical law they were elected to make.

 

 

[sbcmfc]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

There's a lot of misinformation flung around in respect of the act itself and how Police Scotland have been policing football in Scotland recently.  I don't believe the act gives the police any new powers.  Kettering would be covered by a different bill - in England it's section 14 of the public order act, I don't know the equivalent Scots legislation - and that's been used widely for years both against football fans, protestors and "unruly" crowds.  Arresting people for smoke bombs is similarly covered by separate legislation. I don't think a smoke bomb can be considered offensive. 

Whether or not the police have used the act as an excuse to "get tough" with football fans is up for debate but any problem there is in police policy, not the act itself. 

 

im not condoning misbehaviour, but there were already laws against setting off fireworks at the football. I might be wrong, but if you get lifted and then charged at the football, you'll be charged with offensive behaviour at the football rather than breach of the peace or whatever else?

You may be correct that the way police are choosing to handle football fans is separate from the legislation? In fact it may be as a result of clubs like Motherwell, StMirren and Partick thistle going "police-less" for low risk games. Maybe by creating a need for police they get there OT shifts back?

Seems to be something that's been getting gradually worse in recent years. Some of the ridiculous over-reactions I've seen by police and stewards over the last 5 or so season have been mental!

Unfortunately the folk who shout the loudest about it do little to help themselves, so it's easy to dismiss their stance.

[aaid]

12 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

im not condoning misbehaviour, but there were already laws against setting off fireworks at the football. I might be wrong, but if you get lifted and then charged at the football, you'll be charged with offensive behaviour at the football rather than breach of the peace or whatever else?

You may be correct that the way police are choosing to handle football fans is separate from the legislation? In fact it may be as a result of clubs like Motherwell, StMirren and Partick thistle going "police-less" for low risk games. Maybe by creating a need for police they get there OT shifts back?

Seems to be something that's been getting gradually worse in recent years. Some of the ridiculous over-reactions I've seen by police and stewards over the last 5 or so season have been mental!

Unfortunately the folk who shout the loudest about it do little to help themselves, so it's easy to dismiss their stance.

It's rarely clear as press reports tend not to mention what someone's exact charge and under which legislation, they'll mention what someone has actually done and what the sentence is.  I had a quick google and found a few cases of people being convicted of smoke bomb offences - including the squaddie from Motherwell - and this was the only one which mentioned an actual charge, culpable and reckless conduct in this case. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-27945677

Of course it would be in the best interests of those opposing the act to muddy the waters.

 

[sbcmfc]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

Of course it would be in the best interests of those opposing the act to muddy the waters.

 

That's a fair point, and perhaps a lot of the incidents being blamed on the act are actually just over the top policing.

[giblet]

Listened to a lot of pish from the fans rep on BBC Radio Scotland this morning.

Apparently this act has led to an atmosphere of fear of the Police and fans treated like animals?  Absolute nonsense.

This act questions and holds to account for the first time old firms fans songbooks.  Agree Celtic fans seem to be more against it, is probably down to thinking it wouldnt have any impact on them.  This morning the fans rep tried to say existing breach of the peace law was sufficient, clearly in the 100 years beforehand it wasnt.   

 

 

[ErsatzThistle]

11 minutes ago, giblet said:

Listened to a lot of pish from the fans rep on BBC Radio Scotland this morning.

Apparently this act has led to an atmosphere of fear of the Police and fans treated like animals?  Absolute nonsense.

This act questions and holds to account for the first time old firms fans songbooks.  Agree Celtic fans seem to be more against it, is probably down to thinking it wouldnt have any impact on them.  This morning the fans rep tried to say existing breach of the peace law was sufficient, clearly in the 100 years beforehand it wasnt.   

Was it Eddie Toner or Jeanette Findlay ?

They are the two behind the whole FAC thing. At the General Election last year and at the recent Scottish Parliament elections, they were urging "true Celtic fans" in Glasgow and Lanarkshire to vote Labour and stop the "anti-Irish, anti-Catholic SNP". 

I wish some people would wake up and realise that there are a lot more important things in the world than fecking football.

[Rossy]

1 hour ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Was it Eddie Toner or Jeanette Findlay ?

They are the two behind the whole FAC thing. At the General Election last year and at the recent Scottish Parliament elections, they were urging "true Celtic fans" in Glasgow and Lanarkshire to vote Labour and stop the "anti-Irish, anti-Catholic SNP". 

I wish some people would wake up and realise that there are a lot more important things in the world than fecking football.

You have to remember that this act came about almost solely through pressure by the Catholic church...backed strongly by Celtic FC and their fans.

What was the Scottish government meant to do ? If they hadn't brought it in they would have accused (loudly and longly) of condoning anti-Catholic sectarianism.

Celtic fans never forsaw circumstances when this act could be used against them, and now they're the ones attacking it. If the act was amended to say 'only Rangers fans can be prosecuted', then they wold be 100% behind it.

The act, frankly, is piss-poor legislation. Too many grey areas, too many loopholes....on top of that, it clashes with existing legislation and it does nothing to solve under-lying problems in Scottish society.

Get rid of it, or amend it into something sensible. In the meantime, the Scottish government should be putting extreme pressure on the SPFL and SFA to do something to solve their own feckin problems.

[thplinth]

Neo-McCarthyism is everywhere at the moment. 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

Was it Eddie Toner or Jeanette Findlay ?

They are the two behind the whole FAC thing. At the General Election last year and at the recent Scottish Parliament elections, they were urging "true Celtic fans" in Glasgow and Lanarkshire to vote Labour and stop the "anti-Irish, anti-Catholic SNP". 

I wish some people would wake up and realise that there are a lot more important things in the world than fecking football.

It was Jeanette Findlay - she was one of the "expert" guests they have lined up for the whole show. Martin Hannan from the National was representing the other side of the argument. 

Some other women called in - supposedly a random concerned punter - but she let the cat out of the bag by referring to FAC as "we" and "us".  There may have been other partisan callers who were incognito, it was Call Kaye after all. 

[Ally Bongo]

Scottish Labour 2006

 

Jack McConnell 2002