Frankie 8,271 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Celtic FC will not be pursued for chants about the IRA or huns as there is minimal appetite for this to happen in the media. Remember, the media's man at the Justice Committee is Graham Spiers - he who has been writing about Rangers' bigotry for the better part of 20 years but calls IRA stuff complicated and laughs at offence being found over hun. That attitude extends throughout the Scottish media. Do we even remember why Chris McLaughlin is persona non grata at Ibrox? SL will see Rangers first fined, then a stand closed then away fans banned then points deducted. Celtic, at worst, will get a fine. Yes, there's an argument that our fans aren't sensible enough to play the game but it's difficult to blame them when the coverage is so imbalanced. Who really takes genuine offence at a naughty song? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,413 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 You are correct, of course, that the term "strict liability" refers to the liability not the sentencing; but my point is that the authorities will want to be seen to be scrupulously fair, so that whilst they may well set the parameters of the sentences in their rules, the independent panel will make the judgements. Why does strict liability mean independent panels? The usual SFA panels could be used. Surely strict liability is just looking at who is responsible? It could still be the SFA compliance officer who decides who gets pulled up. I fail to see why strict liability means that the whole mind-set of anti-Rangers will change. It just gives them more opportunity to hit us with a big stick. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,664 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) We all, or nearly all of us, know that what will be imposed will be "Selective Liability". We know, too, that the selectivity will manifest itself in two ways - the designation of the Club which will be liable -the behaviour for which that Club which will be liable We know also, that this Selective Liability will be strict, oh very strict, and that salutary sanctions will be necessary, and will be imposed, as a guide and exemplar, to all the rest. It is all very well blathering about "Independent Tribunals", but somebody somewhere has to define the offence and place a case before such panel, in the first place. Call me a cynic, if you like, but in the era of fake news, alternative facts, and manufactured outrage and offence, I can be sanguine about neither the theory, nor the practice of "Strict Liability". Edited February 15, 2017 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Celtic FC will not be pursued for chants about the IRA or huns as there is minimal appetite for this to happen in the media. Remember, the media's man at the Justice Committee is Graham Spiers - he who has been writing about Rangers' bigotry for the better part of 20 years but calls IRA stuff complicated and laughs at offence being found over hun. That attitude extends throughout the Scottish media. Do we even remember why Chris McLaughlin is persona non grata at Ibrox? SL will see Rangers first fined, then a stand closed then away fans banned then points deducted. Celtic, at worst, will get a fine. Yes, there's an argument that our fans aren't sensible enough to play the game but it's difficult to blame them when the coverage is so imbalanced. Who really takes genuine offence at a naughty song? When we have broadcasters turning up the volume at one match and turning the sound off at another then you really have to wonder what's happening in this country. That football authorities cancel holding minutes silences and start applauding the death of someone because of the behaviour of one set of fans disgusts me. The manks have control of the place and it doesn't matter what laws are brought in - we will never be allowed to gain parity. The game's up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 You are correct, of course, that the term "strict liability" refers to the liability not the sentencing; but my point is that the authorities will want to be seen to be scrupulously fair, so that whilst they may well set the parameters of the sentences in their rules, the independent panel will make the judgements. Jesus wept BH. You mean scrupulously fair as in the many thousands of Hibs fans who invaded Hampden whilst a couple hundred (using the Seville calculator) Rangers fans ? You mean scrupulously fair as in the Hibs fans that assaulted Rangers players and staff ? And what did the authorities do ? They charged them with virtually the exact same charges. That incident in and of itself tells you all you need to know about how strict liability would be dealt with by the footballing authorities in Scotland.... One Club's fans initiate the invasion, one club's fans assault the other team's players and staff, one Club has many, many more on the pitch during said invasion..... yet the authorities charge both clubs with the same charges - strict liability would have seen Rangers and Hibs given virtually the same punishment - which simply shows what a farce it would be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 The people who dispensed "justice" in those cases and there ilk are the people you say will be doing likewise in the cases of strict liability. I don't think any young boy should have a criminal record, be sent to jail and have his life ruined for singing a song no matter which football club he supports. You're so out of touch with the average fan that it beggars belief. This. It is an absolute abomination that a young lad trying to get on in life would have a criminal record for nothing more than some football tribalistic songs - and I would say that for a fan of ANY football club. It is ridiculous to have a criminal record for something so bloody trivial. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,395 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 This. It is an absolute abomination that a young lad trying to get on in life would have a criminal record for nothing more than some football tribalistic songs - and I would say that for a fan of ANY football club. It is ridiculous to have a criminal record for something so bloody trivial. Agree but in Scotland 2017 it depends what team you support 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Jesus wept BH. You mean scrupulously fair as in the many thousands of Hibs fans who invaded Hampden whilst a couple hundred (using the Seville calculator) Rangers fans ? You mean scrupulously fair as in the Hibs fans that assaulted Rangers players and staff ? And what did the authorities do ? They charged them with virtually the exact same charges. That incident in and of itself tells you all you need to know about how strict liability would be dealt with by the footballing authorities in Scotland.... One Club's fans initiate the invasion, one club's fans assault the other team's players and staff, one Club has many, many more on the pitch during said invasion..... yet the authorities charge both clubs with the same charges - strict liability would have seen Rangers and Hibs given virtually the same punishment - which simply shows what a farce it would be. From memory....the SFA/SPFL were virtually powerless in the charges that could be brought against Hibs due to NOT having strict liability in place. Hibs simply pulled out the "We took reasonable measures" excuse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 From memory....the SFA/SPFL were virtually powerless in the charges that could be brought against Hibs due to NOT having strict liability in place. Hibs simply pulled out the "We took reasonable measures" excuse. I don't disagree that they wouldn't have been able to get any kind of "conviction" but they could have charged both clubs with whatever they wished - the mere fact that they chose to charge both with the same charges (Hibs only additional charge was smashing up the playing surface) showed that they tried to be "equitable" in the charges presented rather than "just" charges for both clubs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) I don't disagree that they wouldn't have been able to get any kind of "conviction" but they could have charged both clubs with whatever they wished - the mere fact that they chose to charge both with the same charges (Hibs only additional charge was smashing up the playing surface) showed that they tried to be "equitable" in the charges presented rather than "just" charges for both clubs. Not to mention they illegally fined us with a player registration ban and totally bogus and arbitrary charges and excessive fines, during the early stages of our administration. But couldn't fine Hivs for their fans assaulting our players, aye right Edited February 15, 2017 by aweebluesoandso 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.