Anyone know how the SPFL enquiry into the Fir Park riot is progressing?

[RANGERRAB 3,613]

Has liewell told diddy dumbcaster to sweep it under the carpet with everything else ?

Was there another SPFL enquiry into the H block banners at the Abergreen game too ?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

There will be no action taken because the home club can always hide behind the "reasonably practicable" defence i.e. we had the appropriate number of stewards/police etc etc. and the away club wil say that they are not responsible for what happens in someone else's ground (but will pay for the damages as a gesture of goodwill etc). That's why Celtic are always ringing their hands and putting out statements etc, so they can show that as evidence when it happens at Parkhead.

 

That is the reason Hearts were not charged when Lennon was non-assaulted at Tynecastle on 11 May 2011; they were able to prove that they had all the stewards in place in accordance with the local authority regulations and safety certificate.

 

It is also the reason why in 2011, the SPL decided to take no action against Celtic after investigating a report of pro-IRA chanting during their home match against Hibs on 29 October, ruling that the club had taken all “reasonably practicable steps” to prevent them.

 

But Celtic were found guilty by Uefa of “illicit chanting” from their fans during the Europa League match at home to Rennes on 3 November and fined £12,700. The club accepted the punishment, with chief executive Peter Lawwell issuing a warning that the chants must stop.

 

When I was on the JRG I argued very strongly for what is known as absolute or "strict liability" in other words clubs would be responsible for the actions of their supporters and for any damage caused them regardless of culpability; that is the UEFA rule which is why Celtic had no defence to the UEFA charges. I think that the police were in favour but naturally the SPL were against it. So far as I am aware no club has ever been charged never mind found guilty of such a rule breach in the SPL. I asked that question but never got an answer.

 

I even brought it up to McAskill at the final meeting of the JAG; but he said that they didn't want to go that far at that time.

 

However, the more such incidents there are the more likely he might be to change his mind now or in the not too distant future.

Edited December 26, 2013 by BrahimHemdani
Substantially re-written

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I have substantially re-written my post #2 to clarify the "reasonably practicable" defence and have given examples of previous situations.

[Super Cooper 0]

Makes excuses for them all you want but it isn't good enough. Making excuses for them or the lack of punishment.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Makes excuses for them all you want but it isn't good enough. Making excuses for them or the lack of punishment.

 

Excuse me sir; I am not making excuses for anyone, I was just stating the facts.

 

If you read what I said carefully When I was on the JRG I argued very strongly for what is known as absolute or "strict liability" in other words clubs would be responsible for the actions of their supporters and for any damage caused them regardless of culpability; you will see that I argued for strict liability which would have ensured that the SPL had to charge any club whose supporters' conduct was unacceptable.

 

I did not endear myself to the civil servants with this stance.

 

However, I strongly believe that this will be forced on the SPL if they continue to fail to act in this type of situation.

[RANGERRAB 3,613]

Politicians are unwilling to face up to this vile club and its supporters for fear of losing votes.I often wonder why the law of the land isn't applied to them and their blatant show of support for banned terrorist organisations and terrorists

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Politicians are unwilling to face up to this vile club and its supporters for fear of losing votes.I often wonder why the law of the land isn't applied to them and their blatant show of support for banned terrorist organisations and terrorists

 

Or why singing a song in opposition to a banned group was also made an offence both in terms of the law of the land and the SPL rules; something I also strongly opposed as entirely illogical.

[RANGERRAB 3,613]

Or why singing a song in opposition to a banned group was also made an offence both in terms of the law of the land and the SPL rules; something I also strongly opposed as entirely illogical.

 

But we're dealing with highly illogical people who have an agenda against Rangers Football Club and its supporters whilst ignoring misdemeanours from other clubs supporters.I think that's extremely unfair,dangerous and unsustainable.

[compo 6,940]

the spfl don't know their backside from their elbow