Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That would be 2012 then which is odd as you resigned in 2010, given that you are such an averous reader of minutes and such like I find it hard that you don't recall Nil by Mouth being discussed especially given Nil by Mouths condemnation of David Edgars public defence of the Famine song and other instances of that ilk.

 

My humble apologies, I should have said 8 years later.

 

There is a great deal I could say about the RST's position on the Famine Song but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread, which if I recall is strict liability.

[craig 5,199]

I am pleasantly surprised to see that support for strict liability has now almost doubled to 11% vs 89%.

 

More than 10% of Rangers fans supporting the introduction of strict liability is a very positive sign IMO.

 

Your fingers must hurt with all that clicking yesterday

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So basically you have NO evidence as how strict liability will be applied and it's just your opinion and nothing else that there would be an independent panel, amd you do not know whether the SFA compliance officer would be the one who would refer any cases to the committee independent or otherwise.

 

 

When you say "will", you really mean "may or may not" and it's only your opinion.

 

 

 

 

Again, there is no "almost certainly". It's purely your opinion as you think they would be "well advise" and based on nothing than a way for you to justify your support for strict liability,

 

In most cases the application of strict liability will be a matter for the SPFL as it would their rules that would be breached rather than the SFA.

 

I accept that much of what I say is my opinion but it is based on the discussions within the JAG/JRG in which I was closely involved in 2011/12.

 

However, the fact of the matter is that strict liability means that UEFA can hold member clubs responsible for the actions of their supporters even if even if the club concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence. This is, of course, the opposite of the situation in Scotland, which allows much of the behaviour complained of here to go unpunished.

 

Furthermore as Mr Dornan says:

 

In 2014, the Football Association in England (the FA) introduced a limited form of strict

liability with regard to discriminatory crowd misconduct by adding a sentence to its

handbook which states that it is no longer a defence for clubs to demonstrate “due

diligence” in relation to alleged misconduct of supporters relating to offensive behaviour

relating to ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender

reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

However, due diligence is still integral in terms of what sanction may be applied (i.e. the

steps clubs may have taken to try and prevent/deal with the behaviour concerned will be

taken into account when deciding on the level of sanction).

As with the UEFA system of strict liability, the system adopted recently in England could

also be considered to inform an appropriate system for Scotland.

 

http://www.parliament.scot/S5MembersBills/Final_Consultation_Document_pdf.pdf

 

At this stage there is no bill, so those that wish to express their opinion might be better responding to the consultation than completing surveys which may or may not be biased or have their own agenda.

Edited February 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,199]

In most cases the application of strict liability will be a matter for the SPFL as it would their rules that would be breached rather than the SFA.

 

I accept that much of what I say is my opinion but it is based on the discussions within the JAG/JRG in which I was closely involved in 2011/12.However, the fact of the matter is that strict liability means that UEFA can hold member clubs responsible for the actions of their supporters even if even if the club concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence. This is, of course, the opposite of the situation in Scotland, which allows much of the behaviour complained of here to go unpunished.

 

Furthermore as Mr Dornan says:

 

In 2014, the Football Association in England (the FA) introduced a limited form of strict

liability with regard to discriminatory crowd misconduct by adding a sentence to its

handbook which states that it is no longer a defence for clubs to demonstrate “due

diligence” in relation to alleged misconduct of supporters relating to offensive behaviour

relating to ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender

reassignment, sexual orientation or disability.

However, due diligence is still integral in terms of what sanction may be applied (i.e. the

steps clubs may have taken to try and prevent/deal with the behaviour concerned will be

taken into account when deciding on the level of sanction).

As with the UEFA system of strict liability, the system adopted recently in England could

also be considered to inform an appropriate system for Scotland.

 

http://www.parliament.scot/S5MembersBills/Final_Consultation_Document_pdf.pdf

 

At this stage there is no bill, so those that wish to express their opinion might be better responding to the consultation than completing surveys which may or may not be biased or have their own agenda.

 

It is based on 5 years old conversations ???? Aye, nothing has changed in those 5 years right enough

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It is based on 5 years old conversations ???? Aye, nothing has changed in those 5 years right enough

 

The Clubs and the principal parties are all still the same.

 

What has changed is that the rule changes made at the time have failed to deal with the issue; which is exactly what I predicted at the time. The recent changes do nothing to change that situation; and I would argue make it worse.

 

Ministers said at the time that they would consider imposing strict liability if the rule changes proved ineffective; that is why i believe that the SG will either adopt Mr Dornan's proposed legislation as a Government Bill or otherwise support it;'s progress through Parliament.

[boabie 230]

The Clubs and the principal parties are all still the same.

 

What has changed is that the rule changes made at the time have failed to deal with the issue; which is exactly what I predicted at the time. The recent changes do nothing to change that situation; and I would argue make it worse.

 

Ministers said at the time that they would consider imposing strict liability if the rule changes proved ineffective; that is why i believe that the SG will either adopt Mr Dornan's proposed legislation as a Government Bill or otherwise support it;'s progress through Parliament.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong BH but much has changed in the past 5 years. The manks and their reps have cemented their positions and now control the whole of Scottish football from the governing bodies to the media. Even the slightest look at match reporting or coverage shows that.

If nobody reports the crime then nobody will investigate it.

Every perceived offence committed by us receives wall to wall coverage. The manks quite literally are getting away with murder.

Strict liability will see one club and one club alone punished. It won't be the manks.

[craig 5,199]

I'm not saying you are wrong BH but much has changed in the past 5 years. The manks and their reps have cemented their positions and now control the whole of Scottish football from the governing bodies to the media. Even the slightest look at match reporting or coverage shows that.

If nobody reports the crime then nobody will investigate it.

Every perceived offence committed by us receives wall to wall coverage. The manks quite literally are getting away with murder.

Strict liability will see one club and one club alone punished. It won't be the manks.

 

And it is absolutely startling to me that BH doesn't see this.

[Frankie 8,371]

A late, well-respected and much-missed member of this very forum was so worried about the treatment Rangers received politically he risked his job to ensure we were well represented the last time the law was changed with regard to offensive behaviour in football.

 

That says more to me than anything else over the last 10 years.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The Clubs and the principal parties are all still the same.

 

What has changed is that the rule changes made at the time have failed to deal with the issue; which is exactly what I predicted at the time. The recent changes do nothing to change that situation; and I would argue make it worse.

 

Ministers said at the time that they would consider imposing strict liability if the rule changes proved ineffective; that is why i believe that the SG will either adopt Mr Dornan's proposed legislation as a Government Bill or otherwise support it;'s progress through Parliament.

 

What i think has changed in five years is , the SNP have gained power. Resulting in a legacy of resentment borne of frustration, from them not getting their Independence dream, that resentment materialised in them making bad laws. Whilst hounding football fans general in the OBF act, it was specifically designed to tackle Rangers fans . As a unfortunate byproduct of the law it caught up other fans in it's wide net, so that the very people who complained and campaigned long and hard for laws that would specifically target Rangers fans , now want that law scrapped, because of their unacceptable behaviour became under the microscope in the police eyes.

 

Any new football legislation, initiatives or ''Strict Liability'' is merely another manoeuvre by the very same people, in their ultimate goal of targeting Rangers fans and only Rangers fans for all the ills in Scottish society. Whilst the real perpetrators of racist behaviour, sectarianism and bigotry go unpunished, simply because they control the law, judiciary, police and media, through the SNP and fellow travellers in high places. We as Rangers fans, unionists, protestants haven't a hope of getting a fair hearing in the Republic of Scotland.

Edited February 16, 2017 by aweebluesoandso

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not saying you are wrong BH but much has changed in the past 5 years. The manks and their reps have cemented their positions and now control the whole of Scottish football from the governing bodies to the media. Even the slightest look at match reporting or coverage shows that.

If nobody reports the crime then nobody will investigate it.

Every perceived offence committed by us receives wall to wall coverage. The manks quite literally are getting away with murder.

Strict liability will see one club and one club alone punished. It won't be the manks.

 

Well this is where I beg to differ with you.

 

I understand the perception that Celtic have "got away with murder" and that "Every perceived offence committed by us receives wall to wall coverage." but if the rules are not changed then how do you propose to deal with the situation?

 

Strict liability if applied properly should create a level playing field. I realise you will say that it is open to abuse and that may be so but until it is tried you really don't know. There is no doubt that the current system is broke and needs to be fixed.

 

What is your solution?