cooponthewing 1,139 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, buster. said: Quick question for anyone who cares to answer... Why have PQ gone so big on pushing 'strict liability' ? I had been wondering that myself Buster? Let’s be honest it will hurt the yahoos and all the other clubs just as much (if not more) than us. My only answer is that it’s politically motivated and some people at the SNP are pulling the strings? There is a need to push this in the hope of currying favour with the electorate pre campaigns coming up. They are all in this together for better or worse? Edited April 9, 2019 by cooponthewing 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, cooponthewing said: I had been wondering that myself Buster? Let’s be honest it will hurt the yahoos and all the other clubs just as much (if not more) than us. My only answer is that it’s politically motivated and some people at the SNP are pulling the strings? There is a need to push this in the hope of currying favour with the electorate pre campaigns coming up. They are all in this together for better or worse? The obvious angle from a rightly wary and suspicious Rangers support would be that it's a potential way to materially punish us for what is deemed sectarian singing.... I don't think they are wrong to cover the issue but it's about proportionality. The resident wannabe politician and actual bio-mechanic expert on Sportsound alluded to this yesterday when they had a long pow-wow on strict liability, repeating themselves for the nth time. Stewart specifically pointed towards and I paraphrase...'tens of thousands singing sectarian songs'. Their excuse for such repetition was that Daryl Broadfoot hadn't been on the programme the previous Monday after the C v R match 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,929 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 Strict Liability = Selective Liability. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,002 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 Well, it sounds good, doesn’t it? Taking steps to punish nasty people - that’s a bandwagon to be on surely, cracking the whip and playing lead trumpet. Trouble is, the trumpeters don’t understand strict liability and in the end of the day, nasty people go on being nasty. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 2 hours ago, Uilleam said: Strict Liability = Selective Liability. The Compliance officer league confirms that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, pete said: The Compliance officer league confirms that. - Red card for Compliance officer and process - Use money saved to help bring in VAR PQ seem to have dropped VAR from their thoughts. Edited April 9, 2019 by buster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 3 hours ago, cooponthewing said: I had been wondering that myself Buster? Let’s be honest it will hurt the yahoos and all the other clubs just as much (if not more) than us. The only thing that will punished by strict liability will be anti-RC singing and the only club that it will be aimed at will be us. It's just another avenue for them to attack us and it should be resisted. We've seen that Scottish society over a number of years, be it political, media or football, is geared to trying to keep us down and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Strict Liability would be any different. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Bluedell said: The only thing that will punished by strict liability will be anti-RC singing and the only club that it will be aimed at will be us. It's just another avenue for them to attack us and it should be resisted. We've seen that Scottish society over a number of years, be it political, media or football, is geared to trying to keep us down and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Strict Liability would be any different. They wouldn't get away with that. I think it'd be more a matter of proportionality. They'd be screwed if we could lose the offending words/songs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 2 hours ago, buster. said: They wouldn't get away with that. I think it'd be more a matter of proportionality. They'd be screwed if we could lose the offending words/songs. Of course they would get away with it. Celtic fans have had hun banners with no action taken. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,405 Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 The biggest difference between strict liability and the recently repealed offensive behaviour act is that the one they didn’t like was the law and the courts & PF generally didn’t discriminate. Strict liability will be run by the scum for the scum within football, so can be as biased as the compliance officer is and only see/hear/scrutinise what Radio Scotland/Sportscene/Daily Rhebel push for punishment, and ignore anything done by green brigade and the like. 4 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.