One Scotland, Many Cultures & 2 Tier "Justice"

[The Real PapaBear 0]

On the subject of the SNP...anyone else find it odd that all the other parties during the referendum told us we are 'better together' and now that Scotland (according to polls) are voting for their preference in a democratic UK vote are painting Scots as 'dangerous' folk?

 

Better together Scotland as long as you shut your effin mouth. That's not democratic.

 

According to the Tories, LibDems and their chums in the English media, if the Scottish people vote for the SNP in large numbers it will be "holding the rest of us to ransom", cause a "democratic legitimacy issue", have "a massive credibility problem", "Ajockalypse Now" and " a chilling prospect".

 

So there you have it guys; Looks like you might think you're British, but it seems they don't.

Edited May 6, 2015 by The Real PapaBear

[The Real PapaBear 0]

RPB, do you ever feel that you are being allowed just enough rope?

 

Oh, do please expand. Tell me how Procurators Fiscal interpret the law - and please bear in mind that deciding whether to prosecute is not interpreting the law.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Au contraire. Far from being in a pickle, I would seem to have identified the weakness and self-contradictory nature of your argument.

 

You suggested that my objection to retrospective punishment for a crime which did not exist at the time of the offense was 'dangerous' because "many of the successful historic sexual offences are in respect of conduct which was carried out prior to the existing legislation being passed." (I presume you omitted the words "prosecutions of" by mistake after "successful"?).

 

Yet, in your next post you admit that the sexual offenses were also illegal at the time they were committed. Illegal then; illegal now.

The same is NOT true of O'hara's use of 'hun'. At the time he used the term, 4 years before the law changed, it was perfectly legal to do so.

 

Thus your comparison of the term hun with sex crimes is (how can I put this?), somewhat misplaced, shalll we say?

 

I'll ask again; which legislation dealing with sexual abuse was passed after the event and what effect did this legislation have on the legality of the original abuse? And I'll add a rider; In what way is this retrospective legislation, which you yourself say had no bearing on the legality of the conduct, comparable to the passing of the SNP bill which made illegal conduct which hithertofore had been legal?

 

 

 

 

Interesting to see you use NBM as a support for your argument. Who'd have thought?

 

I think NBM have an interest in seeing sectarianism under every rock; it's what they do; it's their raison d'etre. The more of it they can identify, the more necessary they are as an organisation. Call me cynical.

 

Fiscals were follow the law; they don't interpret it and thus cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

If for example we take the crime of the rape of a man by another - that was not formally recognised under the old Sexual Offences Act, however it is with the passing of the Sexual Offences (Scotand) Act 2009. Therefore it would be competent for an individual to be tried for a historic offence of this nature, despite the relevant legislation not being in existence at the time of the crime. That is the point I was making to you. However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted - its the utter hypocrisy of the SNP position over this matter. I think the de-selection of O'Hara woud have sent out a message which was consistent with the legislation they are determined to enforce.

 

Furthermore I would disagree with you completely regarding Fiscals - to suggest that they are not interpreting the law, merely prosecuting on instruction is complete nonsense given the vagueness of the legislation itself. That vagueness within the legislation is one of the main areas of criticism. At some point, either the Fiscal's service themselves or the Police, who act as agents obo of the Fiscal, have interpreted that the term "hun" falls within the scope of this legislation - hence the subsequent prosecutions.

 

This is further backed up by 26th Of Foot's recent suggestions that Mullholland has instructed both the PF's service and the Police, that he will no longer entertain prosecutions for use of the term. I dont think any of us are in any doubt whatsoever what the entailment of this instruction will be with regard to future crime pattern analysis relating to Sectarian Offences.

 

Do you honestly believe that the term "hun" is just a collective name for Rangers supporters and is in no way sectarian or attempt to de-humanise our support ?

Edited May 6, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[der Berliner 3,803]

Do you honestly believe that the term "hun" is just a collective name for Rangers supporters and is in no way sectarian or attempt to de-humanise our support ?

 

IMHO' date=' over the course of these last decade or so, the definition of "sectarianism" in the West of Scotland has got a new meaning, not least when it comes to where it is being used and "against" whom. There should be no doubt whatsoever about the ulterior meaning of either "f-enian" or "hun". We all know where it hails from and how it got here. People who dealt and deal with it on a daily basis have long since established whether it is inappropriate to use or not.

 

Question

Under the Freedom of Information Act, please could you provide copies of documents provided for officers and staff to advise them on their use of language - i.e., lists of words or language that may be deemed "offensive", "inappropriate" and that should be avoided.

 

Answer

Please see the attached document containing the PSNI's Appropriate Language Guide. For your information this document is currently being reviewed.

 

SNI EQUALITY &

DIVERSITY UNIT

Lisnasharragh

42 Montgomery Road

Belfast, BT6 9LD

 

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is a professional organisation and it is essential that we take a lead in using language that does not exclude colleagues or members of

the community, does not stereotype and always shows a whole hearted commitment to supporting our Equal Opportunities Policy.

By demonstrating our commitment to getting our language and communications right, we hope to reassure officers, staff and local communities of our commitment to fighting

crime and protecting all of the people within Northern Ireland.

We are aware that there are varying views in the police service about the importance of language as an equality issue, but we strongly believe that our commitment to diversity

will be strengthened and easier to achieve if we carefully examine the language we use and ensure we treat people as individuals, not merely as members of groups.

It is important to remember that the context in which language is used is as relevant as the actual words uttered and we are mindful that context must be taken in account. It is

also critical that people do not find themselves so apprehensive about the language they use that we fail to communicate at all.

The information contained in this guide is intended to help to protect staff from making unintentional mistakes in the language they use and to help them interact better with our

communities.

It also provides valuable guidance on how staff should respond to inappropriate language, both within and outside the workplace. Getting it right sends an important

message about our awareness of equality issues and our respect for individual differences and preferences.

 

Chief Constable Sir Hugh Ord

 

They have a list of what is acceptable and appropriate and what is not. And if anyone, they should know.

 

You can find the list and what words stand for on page 4 onwards.

 

http://www.psni.police.uk/appropriate_inappropriate_language.pdf (opens PDF file)

 

Yet, in modern day Scotland, some words have been taken out of that context, others have not. Did you need more than the above though to get an authoritative guideline to work with?

Edited May 6, 2015 by der Berliner

[The Real PapaBear 0]

If for example we take the crime of the rape of a man by another - that was not formally recognised under the old Sexual Offences Act' date=' however it is with the passing of the Sexual Offences (Scotand) Act 2009. Therefore it would be competent for an individual to be tried for a historic offence of this nature, despite the relevant legislation not being in existence at the time of the crime. That is the point I was making to you. However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted - its the utter hypocrisy of the SNP position over this matter. I think the de-selection of O'Hara woud have sent out a message which was consistent with the legislation they are determined to enforce.

 

Furthermore I would disagree with you completely regarding Fiscals - to suggest that they are not interpreting the law, merely prosecuting on instruction is complete nonsense given the vagueness of the legislation itself. That vagueness within the legislation is one of the main areas of criticism. At some point, either the Fiscal's service themselves or the Police, who act as agents obo of the Fiscal, have interpreted that the term "hun" falls within the scope of this legislation - hence the subsequent prosecutions.

 

This is further backed up by 26th Of Foot's recent suggestions that Mullholland has instructed both the PF's service and the Police, that he will no longer entertain prosecutions for use of the term. I dont think any of us are in any doubt whatsoever what the entailment of this instruction will be with regard to future crime pattern analysis relating to Sectarian Offences.

 

Do you honestly believe that the term "hun" is just a collective name for Rangers supporters and is in no way sectarian or attempt to de-humanise our support ?[/quote']

 

Again, you fail to address the point that a sexual offense was still illegal prior to the redefinition of it.

Rape of a man has always been illegal and was simply prosecuted under a different law prior to the new Act.

 

O'Hara's comments were not illegal when he made them - and refusing to punish someone retrospectively is not hypocricy, it's natural justice.

 

Or should we all now be done for drink driving because we will all have driven in the past above the current limit?

 

With regard to Fiscals, I think you misunderstand what they do. They have a degree of discretion on whether to prosecute only; they are not law lords and they do not and may not interpret the law. Thus, being unable to interpret the law they cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

As to the term 'hun' it is different things according to who is using it. It can be sectarian, for example when used by a rabid Tim; it can simply be a footballing insult, for example when used by my Protestant, Hearts-supporting son in law or my Protestant, Motherwell-supporting ex-business partner or by decent Tims.

[Frankie 8,652]

Context is everything when it comes to the issue and it would be very difficult to prove the individual's intentions no matter when he used the term.

 

However, I certainly wouldn't be voting for the person and I doubt many other bears in the area will either. It's a shame the SNP didn't acknowledge this in their reply to the original article and it should be a source of concern that the party is regularly being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments. Fair enough, their politicians are entitled to their personal opinions on anything they like but these stories will cost them votes - even if their strongest supporters may not be prepared to concede the point.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Again, you fail to address the point that a sexual offense was still illegal prior to the redefinition of it.

Rape of a man has always been illegal and was simply prosecuted under a different law prior to the new Act.

 

O'Hara's comments were not illegal when he made them - and refusing to punish someone retrospectively is not hypocricy, it's natural justice.

 

Or should we all now be done for drink driving because we will all have driven in the past above the current limit?

 

With regard to Fiscals, I think you misunderstand what they do. They have a degree of discretion on whether to prosecute only; they are not law lords and they do not and may not interpret the law. Thus, being unable to interpret the law they cannot be accused of being disingenuous.

 

As to the term 'hun' it is different things according to who is using it. It can be sectarian, for example when used by a rabid Tim; it can simply be a footballing insult, for example when used by my Protestant, Hearts-supporting son in law or my Protestant, Motherwell-supporting ex-business partner or by decent Tims.

 

Let me assure you RPB, I have no misunderstanding on the role of the PF

Edited May 6, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Context is everything when it comes to the issue and it would be very difficult to prove the individual's intentions no matter when he used the term.

 

However, I certainly wouldn't be voting for the person and I doubt many other bears in the area will either. It's a shame the SNP didn't acknowledge this in their reply to the original article and it should be a source of concern that the party is regularly being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments. Fair enough, their politicians are entitled to their personal opinions on anything they like but these stories will cost them votes - even if their strongest supporters may not be prepared to concede the point.

 

The party is being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments by a section of the Rangers support; by nobody else. I doubt whether these stories will cost any votes, since people stupid enough to vote politically based on their footballing allegience wouldn't have been voting SNP anyway.

 

What is certainly true is that the wider SNP membership, indeed wider Scottish society, of all clubs and none, are becoming increasingly put off by the behaviour of those moronic Rangers fans who align themselves with British nationalism, Unionism and in some cases Fascist causes, drape themselves in union flags, behave like thugs and drag the name of the club through the mud with their obnoxious behaviour.

[RANGERRAB 3,732]

The party is being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments by a section of the Rangers support; by nobody else. I doubt whether these stories will cost any votes, since people stupid enough to vote politically based on their footballing allegience wouldn't have been voting SNP anyway.

 

What is certainly true is that the wider SNP membership, indeed wider Scottish society, of all clubs and none, are becoming increasingly put off by the behaviour of those moronic Rangers fans who align themselves with British nationalism, Unionism and in some cases Fascist causes, drape themselves in union flags, behave like thugs and drag the name of the club through the mud with their obnoxious behaviour.

 

But of course it's OK to support Scottish nationalism, separatism, and in some cases militant Irish republicanism, drape themselves in Saltires & behave like thugs

[Frankie 8,652]

The party is being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments by a section of the Rangers support; by nobody else. I doubt whether these stories will cost any votes, since people stupid enough to vote politically based on their footballing allegience wouldn't have been voting SNP anyway.

 

What is certainly true is that the wider SNP membership, indeed wider Scottish society, of all clubs and none, are becoming increasingly put off by the behaviour of those moronic Rangers fans who align themselves with British nationalism, Unionism and in some cases Fascist causes, drape themselves in union flags, behave like thugs and drag the name of the club through the mud with their obnoxious behaviour.

 

No, the party is linking itself with these sentiments by allowing its members to share them without penalty.

 

I certainly don't base my politics on my football team but, stupid or not, many will and even if you don't, it's human nature to interact more with those whose community values you share. Hence, if you're asking me to vote for someone who calls me a hun and/or questions the legal status of my football club whilst their party excuses such behaviour, I'll find that distasteful no matter their politics. It's not as if any of the parties are hugely different from the other nowadays anyway when we examine their polices - independence (Union or EU membership) aside.

 

Now, I won't excuse any Rangers fan who acts badly but neither will I examine Rangers fans exclusively when we talk about offensive behaviour. With that in mind, I'm surprised you don't agree the SNP members highlighted have dragged the name of the SNP through the mud with their 'moronic and obnoxious' actions. It's a shame some can't acknowledge that but perhaps such people are too stupid to debate without taking their political party allegiance into account?