Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Leaving aside the comments about NBM, the fact of the matter is that strict liability is long overdue and I am in no doubt that unless there is a quick about face by the SFA/SPFL the government will adopt the proposed legislation.

 

I would remind everyone that the only Club that has ever been charged with the unacceptable conduct of their supporters by the SPFL is Motherwell and they managed to wriggle out with a slap on the wrist.

 

Otherwise the "reasonably practicable" defence has always prevailed.

 

If strict liability is imposed there will be no excuses for failure to take action on the types of situations that are rightly complained about in the posts in this thread.

[forlanssister 3,092]

Leaving aside the comments about NBM, the fact of the matter is that strict liability is long overdue and I am in no doubt that unless there is a quick about face by the SFA/SPFL the government will adopt the proposed legislation.

 

I would remind everyone that the only Club that has ever been charged with the unacceptable conduct of their supporters by the SPFL is Motherwell and they managed to wriggle out with a slap on the wrist.

 

Otherwise the "reasonably practicable" defence has always prevailed.

 

If strict liability is imposed there will be no excuses for failure to take action on the types of situations that are rightly complained about in the posts in this thread.

 

Oh aye and justice be dispensed with even handedness and without fear or favour?

 

Do you want to buy a bridge?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Oh aye and justice be dispensed with even handedness and without fear or favour?

 

Do you want to buy a bridge?

 

You are missing both my points entirely:

 

1. 
   
2. There will be no question of judgement on who should be charged and who should not; and
    
   
3. The punishments that are handed down will be independently assessed and open to scrutiny.
   

Strict liability is the only way to avoid the perception of bias alluded to in this thread.

Edited February 14, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[forlanssister 3,092]

You are missing both my points entirely:

 

1. 
   
2. There will be no question of judgement on who should be charged and who should not; and
    
   
3. The punishments that are handed down will be independently assessed and open to scrutiny.
   

Strict liability is the only way to avoid the perception of bias alluded to in this thread.

 

Aye right, in dreamland perhaps but not Scotland.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Aye right, in dreamland perhaps but not Scotland.

 

If strict liability had been in place over the past 5/6 years there would have been no excuse for failing to deal with many of the situations rightly complained of in this thread.

 

The Clubs tinkered with the Rules in 2012 and again late last year but it will make no difference; in fact as I pointed out at the time, clarifying what constitutes "reasonably practicable" just makes it easier to defend the indefensible.

 

The very fact that that the Clubs have resisted strict liability so fiercely, because they do not perceive it to be in their best interests, should tell you that it is the necessary solution to the problem of unacceptable behaviour.

 

Your use of innuendo does nothing to assert the opposite view.

Edited February 15, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[craig 5,199]

You are missing both my points entirely:

 

1. 
   
2. There will be no question of judgement on who should be charged and who should not; and
    
   
3. The punishments that are handed down will be independently assessed and open to scrutiny.
   

Strict liability is the only way to avoid the perception of bias alluded to in this thread.

 

Independent as in the Compliance Officer is independent ? You really are incredibly naive.

[craig 5,199]

If strict liability had been in place over the past 5/6 years there would have been no excuse for failing to deal with many of the situations rightly complained of in this thread.

 

The Clubs tinkered with the Rules in 2012 and again late last year but it will make no difference; in fact as I pointed out at the time, clarifying what constitutes "reasonably practicable" just makes it easier to defend the indefensible.

 

Your innuendo does nothing to assert the opposite view.

 

The very fact that strict liability is not in the interests of the Clubs, which is why they have resisted it so fiercely, should tell you that it is the necessary solution.

 

The only problem with your view is that whilst we perhaps can find the club's "guilty" the reality is that the sentencing will be completely open to those handing down such punishments. And we know that others will get a slap on the wrists whilst we get hung, drawn and quartered.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The only problem with your view is that whilst we perhaps can find the club's "guilty" the reality is that the sentencing will be completely open to those handing down such punishments. And we know that others will get a slap on the wrists whilst we get hung, drawn and quartered.

 

Well, if that's the only problem with my view then I am happy with your judgement.

 

Almost certainly the cases will be decided by an independent panel and as we have seen in the past they can find in favour of Rangers e.g. "no sporting advantage".

 

At least I know you recognise that strict liability is coming, others have their heads firmly bedded in the sand.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Independent as in the Compliance Officer is independent ? You really are incredibly naive.

 

The Tribunals will be at an entirely different level, almost certainly headed by judges or former judges or leading counsel. I am equally confident, for just the reasons that you suggest, that the authorities will lean over backwards to ensure that there is no potential bias in the backgrounds of panel members.

[craig 5,199]

The Tribunals will be at an entirely different level, almost certainly headed by judges or former judges or leading counsel. I am equally confident, for just the reasons that you suggest, that the authorities will lean over backwards to ensure that there is no potential bias in the backgrounds of panel members.

 

Strict liability doesn't mean that any sentencing would come from the judiciary though. That's where your argument potentially fails.