Rangers fans from Greenock cleared of offensive chant charges

[Bluedell 5,786]

I fear that whatever is brought in to replace the OBA could be worse.

[forlanssister 3,114]

From today's Times.

 

Football act is an offence against free speech

 

alex massie

 

 

The SNP’s bill was a shambles from the start, did little to address sectarianism and was gesture politics at its worst

 

 

Last week, two supporters of Rangers football club appeared in court charged with breaking the terms of the SNP’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Their alleged crime had been to sing a song about the Young Citizen Volunteers, a youth organisation affiliated with the Ulster Volunteer Force.

 

Despite the fact that the Young Citizen Volunteers is not a proscribed organisation and that joining it is, consequently, perfectly legal, Scottish police officers decided — and received the backing of the Crown Office — that it must be a criminal offence to sing a song citing the YCV. Sheriff Maxwell Hendry disagreed, accepting a submission from the defence that there was no case to answer, and dismissed the case.

 

Next month a Hearts supporter will appear in court to answer to the heinous charge of having called the Kilmarnock striker Josh Magennis an “Irish pr***” during a recent meeting between the two sides. This supporter has also been charged with sectarian behaviour likely to incite public disorder, even though no such disorder was in fact incited. The wheels of justice grind extremely finely, however, and mill even the mildest insults.

 

I mention these two cases simply because they are two of the most recent of many instances revealing the ludicrous mess created by the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. It is a bill of such obvious ghastliness that it should never have been passed, but it bears remembering that although those of us who argued against it five years ago have been vindicated, there were few prepared back then to defend it.

 

Now Labour’s James Kelly plans to introduce a bill repealing the act. The other opposition parties at Holyrood say they will support Mr Kelly’s bill and thereby biff the SNP on the nose, reminding the Nationalists that a minority government cannot expect to have everything it wants.

 

Of course the bill was a masterful example of the “something must be done” school of legislative grandstanding. In the aftermath of a tousy Old Firm fixture, Alex Salmond — who, typically, remains proud of this nonsense — told his staff to cobble together a bill, any kind of bill, in a handful of weeks. Not because doing so would or could have any meaningful impact on sectarianism but because doing so would give the impression that the government was doing something. It was gesture politics at its worst and its most infantile; what you might expect from a student union, not a notionally grown-up government.

 

The bill has been a shambles from the start and, right from the beginning of its inauspicious passage through parliament, this was blindingly obvious to anyone who cared to look at the issue. You may recall, for instance, that Roseanna Cunningham, the poor minister responsible for shepherding the bill through parliament, had to clarify that the bill would not actually criminalise the singing of the national anthem. On the other hand, she said it could, in certain circumstances, criminalise tattoos if they were deemed to be of a threatening or abusive nature.

 

Who is he to decide, presumably in consultation with a higher power, if something is “patently” offensive?

 

Not that there is any evident link between real crimes and the singing of sectarian songs or the thinking of sectarian thoughts. If there is an increase in domestic violence on weekends when Celtic play Rangers that is because too many men care too much about football, not because they know the words to The Sash or The Boys of the Old Brigade. Men hit their wives because they’re brutes, not because they sang a football song two hours previously.

 

It was always obvious that the act had next to nothing to do with actual sectarianism and everything to do with appearing to send a serious message about a serious matter. Even so, the content of the songs sung was much less important than the identity of the people singing them. Which is why singing a song at Hampden Park could become a criminal offence but singing exactly the same song at Murrayfield would not. Still, as Kenny MacAskill cheerfully boasted: “Those who are being prosecuted are hardly the heirs to the Clydeside Apprentices strike, let alone the Tolpuddle Martyrs.” So that makes everything fine and dandy.

 

Except it doesn’t, because speech is speech and no one, least of all the likes of Mr MacAskill, has the right to abridge speech rights without due cause. This bill, however, is a prototypical example of creating a victimless crime. Mr MacAskill admitted as much recently, noting: “The absence of good people to be offended doesn’t make something inoffensive if it patently is offensive.” But who is he to decide, presumably in consultation with a higher power, if something is “patently” offensive?

 

Mr MacAskill boasts that his party’s grubby little bill remains “hugely popular with the public at large” as though mere popularity is justification enough for a clampdown on speech with which the likes of Mr MacAskill happen to disapprove. There’s a reason why no one has ever accused the SNP of being a liberal party.

 

I fear, however, that if the bill is repealed, we should expect the SNP to exploit the next football-related stabbing in the west of Scotland and blame this on the opposition parties, pretending that if the act still stood, this crime would not have taken place. This will be contemptible but also, I wager, predictable. Most of the arguments against the bill made by Labour and Conservative MSPs focus almost exclusively upon its practical shortcomings. It is true that these are as numerous as they are significant but the manner in which the legislation has been enforced is, in truth, the least of its problems.

 

You might expect me to greet the prospect of its repeal with some measure of jubilation. And you would be right. Nevertheless, even jubilation must be qualified and, this being a Holyrood matter, scepticism is more likely to be rewarded than optimism.

 

Typically, very few — if, indeed, any — of the act’s parliamentary critics appear concerned by this. They complain that the act is “unworkable”, and so it is, but this complaint unavoidably implies that if the act could be fixed or made to “work”, all would be well and no one need trouble themselves about it. This, it must always be said, is not the case.

 

The principle of the matter is a much more important thing than the cockamamie, capricious nature of its practical enforcement. Too many MSPs, from all parties, still fail to understand this. It’s not about football and it’s not about sectarianism either, it’s about speech.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/723dc640-1bb4-11e6-bf22-78061c6f2b5c

 

As aside: Two young lads from our RSC were lifted after the Cup semi- final. They were lifted in Aberdeen the back of one in the Sunday morning. Initially they were charged with a Breach of the Peace which was later amended to a charge of Religiously Aggravated Breach of the Peace and another charge under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act, however the Fiscal saw through the nonsense and dropped the charges just prior to the Intermediate Diet. Two young lads face weeks of turmoil for having the temerity to get drunk and sing a song 11 hours after and 150 miles away from a football match. As Rangers fans I suppose they can thank their lucky stars they never appeared in front of Sheriff Crozier.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-31856341

 

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354272-man-who-shouted-sectarian-abuse-at-old-firm-match-avoids-jail/

[colinstein 294]

Crozier shouldn't be allowed to continue as a sheriff. He is clearly off his rocker

[der Berliner 3,890]

"Football act is an offence against free speech" they say. It is somewhat strange that "free speech" almost only comes into play with stuff like this (as linked above too):

 

Poker player avoids jail over sectarian abuse at Old Firm game - STV

 

Sam Miller, from Essex, given football banning order after incident at Hampden.

A professional poker player who shouted sectarian abuse after the Old Firm match at Hampden last month has been given a football banning order but avoided jail.

 

Sam Miller, 26, from Romford, Essex, was spared jail after shouting 'f****** orange b******s" after the Celtic v Rangers Scottish Cup semi-final on April 17.

 

Miller was arrested at the match and after spending a night in the cells pleaded guilty to breaching the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act by shouting, swearing, gesticulating and making sectarian remarks at Rangers fans and police officers. He also admitted resisting arrest.

 

Passing sentence on Monday, sheriff Paul Crozier said: "Your conduct was appalling, bringing shame on you and your family."

 

He handed Miller a community payback order with the condition he must carry out 120 hours of unpaid work within six months. He also imposed a year-long football banning order.

 

Miller was arrested at the match when police spotted him walking towards Rangers fans at an area of the stand after the final whistle.

 

He was seen shouting and gesturing in an aggressive manner at the fans as they celebrated, and some were beginning to leave.

 

Procurator fiscal depute Stuart Fauré said: "He was shouting 'f****** orange b******s. Police officers heard him use that phrase repeatedly.

 

"The officers went towards the accused and told him he was under arrest and placed their hands on him.

 

"It was at this stage he deliberately tensed his arms making it more difficult for the police officers to take him into custody."

 

The court heard he shouted the same phrase and police were able to finally prise him away from the railings.

 

Defence lawyer Des Finnieston told the court he has "very seldom" seen a client so anxious and regretful for what they have done.

 

He said Miller got caught up in a group situation but as to how it happened, Miller is "lost for an explanation".

 

Miller was in Glasgow for a poker game and had been invited by a friend to the hospitality area and had too much to drink.

 

The court heard he has no affiliation to either team but had put a bet on Celtic to win.

 

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354272-man-who-shouted-sectarian-abuse-at-old-firm-match-avoids-jail/

 

How come that the chap uses these words but is not regarded as a Yahoo?

Edited May 18, 2016 by der Berliner

[calscot 0]

They seem to be missing the point - Rangers banned the reporter for lack of impartiality, BBC stopped sending reporters in a strange response to defend that lack of impartiality - in the name of defending impartiality. The reply says it's right for the BBC to defend impartiality, and misses the point that in this case there is a massive contradiction somewhere - either by Rangers or the BBC. The defence is an oxymoron - in defence of a moron...

 

The proper response to the complaint, would be to investigate whether the BBC was, or was not, impartial in this case. All they are doing is taking the mythical impartiality and quality of the BBC as indisputable gospel, meaning no complaint against such can succeed. The irony is that the BBC has already had to apologise several times for it's lack of impartiality and lack of quality which makes the reply either ignorant or nefarious.

[pete 2,499]

"Football act is an offence against free speech" they say. It is somewhat strange that "free speech" almost only comes into play with stuff like this (as linked above too):

 

 

 

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354272-man-who-shouted-sectarian-abuse-at-old-firm-match-avoids-jail/

 

How come that the chap uses these words but is not regarded as a Yahoo?

 

They were happy to use poker player instead of Celtic supporter.

[craig 5,199]

"No affiliation to either team"

 

"f****** orange b*******"

 

How do you have no affiliation to either team yet shout obscenities about one of them. I'm not sure I can reconcile the two.

[forlanssister 3,114]

"No affiliation to either team"

 

"f****** orange b*******"

 

How do you have no affiliation to either team yet shout obscenities about one of them. I'm not sure I can reconcile the two.

 

It's clear the defence lied to the Court.

 

https://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/the-auld-firm-song-remains-the-same/

[craig 5,199]

It's clear the defence lied to the Court.

 

https://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/the-auld-firm-song-remains-the-same/

 

His lawyer should be hauled back up for contempt.

[forlanssister 3,114]

They seem to be missing the point - Rangers banned the reporter for lack of impartiality, BBC stopped sending reporters in a strange response to defend that lack of impartiality - in the name of defending impartiality. The reply says it's right for the BBC to defend impartiality, and misses the point that in this case there is a massive contradiction somewhere - either by Rangers or the BBC. The defence is an oxymoron - in defence of a moron...

 

The proper response to the complaint, would be to investigate whether the BBC was, or was not, impartial in this case. All they are doing is taking the mythical impartiality and quality of the BBC as indisputable gospel, meaning no complaint against such can succeed. The irony is that the BBC has already had to apologise several times for it's lack of impartiality and lack of quality which makes the reply either ignorant or nefarious.

 

Is this posted in the wrong thread?

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?77862-Response-From-BBC-Trust