craig 5,199 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 You don't have to. They have to prove it isn't. Or at least prove reasonable doubt. You only have to convince a jury it was. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. The prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was a religious hate crime. You know it is. I know it is. Pete knows it is. We all know it is. But proving it in court is a very different proposition. And I think that is pete's point. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,173 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I reckon that on the same facts the culprits could be charged under each of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Racial and Religious Hatred Acts with an aggravated Breac of the Peace as a safety net. Interesting to see what happens. Edited October 2, 2016 by Scott7 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. The prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was a religious hate crime. You know it is. I know it is. Pete knows it is. We all know it is. But proving it in court is a very different proposition. And I think that is pete's point. Yes Craig my point from the beginning was proving it in court. What you have is a doll with what looks to me like a dish cloth draped round it's neck. Not 100% sure but it looks more like it than a real sash. If a prosecutor goes for that call there is a good chance he will lose. Breach of the piece is probably a charge everyone will plead guilty to so it is a no brainer for me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,772 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I 'd like to know how these yahoos got these dolls(and whatever else) into the san giro in the first place. Is this not a security risk ? What else could they ( or anyone else) smuggle into the stadium? Or have Plod Scotland or RHegan's SFA not considered that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Prove it in court. You ignored the last post, how does this suit? Extract from the OBA ... 6 Threatening communications (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person communicates material to another person, and Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 1) 5 (b) either Condition A or Condition B is satisfied. (2) Condition A is that— (a) the material consists of, contains or implies a threat, or an incitement, to carry out a seriously violent act against a person or against persons of a particular description, (b) the material or the communication of it would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and © the person communicating the material— (i) intends by doing so to cause fear or alarm, or (ii) is reckless as to whether the communication of the material would cause fear or alarm. (3) For the purposes of Condition A, where the material consists of or includes an image (whether still or moving), the image is taken to imply a threat or incitement such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if— (a) the image depicts or implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act (whether actual or fictitious) against a person or against persons of a particular description (whether the person or persons depicted are living or dead or actual or fictitious), and (b) a reasonable person would be likely to consider that the image implies the carrying out of a seriously violent act against an actual person or against actual persons of a particular description. (4) Subsection (3) does not affect the generality of subsection (2)(a). (5) Condition B is that— (a) the material is threatening, and (b) the person communicating it intends by doing so to stir up hatred on religious grounds. Now the question is, where will the trial be heard ... https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/sheriff-court/about-sheriff-courts About Sheriff Courts The majority of cases are dealt with in the country’s Sheriff Courts unless they are of sufficient seriousness to go to the Supreme Courts at first instance. Each Sheriffdom has a sheriff principal charged with a number of duties in respect of the courts for which they are responsible, including in particular a duty "to secure the efficient disposal of business in the sheriff courts of that Sheriffdom". Criminal cases are heard by a sheriff and a jury (solemn procedure), but can be heard by a sheriff alone (summary procedure). ... will it be a solemn or summary procedure? As stated above, a Sheriff on his own can determine what a person is thinking when he sings 'TBB' , so why does he need a jury here? How hard can it be to prove condition A & B above? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Yes Craig my point from the beginning was proving it in court. What you have is a doll with what looks to me like a dish cloth draped round it's neck. Not 100% sure but it looks more like it than a real sash. If a prosecutor goes for that call there is a good chance he will lose. Breach of the piece is probably a charge everyone will plead guilty to so it is a no brainer for me. Rubbish. Have you ever seen a dishcloth with a hole in the middle big enough to pass a lifesize human head through? What is the symbolism in hanging a doll with a dishcloth around its neck? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Rubbish. Have you ever seen a dishcloth with a hole in the middle big enough to pass a lifesize human head through? What is the symbolism in hanging a doll with a dishcloth around its neck? Okay a piece of rag or whatever but certainly not a orange order sash in my opinion. All your law things prove absolutely nothing. there are Rangers supporters who wear orange scarf's so it could be football related. How many Rangers supporters wear orange who are not in the orange lodge? For a prosecution on religious grounds there would have to be a text linking it to the orange order. Sorry you have not convinced me that the law is against us on this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 I think you do have to prove it in court which 'innocent until proven guilty' is all about. Personally I too may argue that there is a religious/sectarian element to it because let's face it we all know there is but proving it can be a different matter and prosecutors likely take the easiest path to a conviction of any kind. You only need to convince a jury. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 You only need to convince a jury. Thus prove it if the jury does it's job. You are playing with words to suite your case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Okay a piece of rag or whatever but certainly not a orange order sash in my opinion. All your law things prove absolutely nothing. there are Rangers supporters who wear orange scarf's so it could be football related. How many Rangers supporters wear orange who are not in the orange lodge? For a prosecution on religious grounds there would have to be a text linking it to the orange order. Sorry you have not convinced me that the law is against us on this. Me for one and https://twitter.com/orangebunnet for another. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.