Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Ira Gaines]

So why defend an Act which there's absolutely no need for?

There's nothing it goes after which they couldn't already do something about. The only need for it is to victimise football supporters. It's like something right out of the Tory playbook.

[Baxter Parp]

6 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

So why defend an Act which there's absolutely no need for?

There's nothing it goes after which they couldn't already do something about. The only need for it is to victimise football supporters. It's like something right out of the Tory playbook.

I think that's complete balls.  There's no doubt something needs to be done about bigotry at football matches and there's no doubt offensive behaviour needs to be contained too.  The problem is interpretation of the act, it needs more definition.  There was no way of dealing with it before otherwise it would have been dealt with, right?

[NotThePars]

That last sentence is giving way too much faith to lawmakers lol.

[The Master]

9 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

There's no doubt something needs to be done about bigotry at football matches

I'd rather something was done about bigotry full stop. 

Why single out football?

[mjw]

I'd rather something was done about bigotry full stop. 
Why single out football?

Because the people running the game turned a blind eye for decades?

That's not to say I agree with the legislation but no one else lifted a finger.

[Crossbill]

Can those supporting repeal please give some examples of where they feel people have been prosecuted unjustly?

[The Master]

2 hours ago, mjw said:

Because the people running the game turned a blind eye for decades?

That's not to say I agree with the legislation but no one else lifted a finger.

I'm not sure that's a reason to have legislation that focuses specifically on football. Not least because I'm struggling to think of something that is offensive/bigoted inside a football ground, but not outside.

[Peppino Impastato]

I srsly doubt anybody was arrested for simply shouting f**k motherwell, that's probably just his story or a tabloid take on events.  Just as I doubt the unionist parties opposition to it is motivated by anything other than a chance to give the SNP a bloody nose.  

 

It's pretty much the most popular law ever.  Show me one unjust conviction.

[mjw]

I'm not sure that's a reason to have legislation that focuses specifically on football. Not least because I'm struggling to think of something that is offensive/bigoted inside a football ground, but not outside.

Is there any other sport that would require a specific law? I'm struggling to think of any where bigotry and being offensive is part of the day out.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

5 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

I think that's complete balls.  There's no doubt something needs to be done about bigotry at football matches and there's no doubt offensive behaviour needs to be contained too.  The problem is interpretation of the act, it needs more definition.  There was no way of dealing with it before otherwise it would have been dealt with, right?

That in itself is the problem with the law though. It's deliberately written in a way that means that the police can interpret it however they want. 'Anything a reasonable person would find offensive' covers almost anything. 

 

[The OP]

Tbf breach of the peace could be similarly criticised for being far too broad and allowing the police and PF to criminalise any behaviour they disagree with. It’s known as “the fiscal’s flexible friend” for a reason (although fwiw when challenged it has been found to be clear enough to not contravene the right to no punishment without law).

Anyway, having said all that, the Act is a total knee-jerk and a pish piece of legislation. I’ll likely never be penalised under it because I’m quite careful about how I behave and what I sing at football but that doesn’t make it good law, no matter what one particular group of people with unclear knowledge on the subject responding to a very partial question might have quickly clicked whilst completing surveys to make a paltry sum of money.

Edited January 18, 2018 by The OP

[bob the tank]

Tbf breach of the peace could be similarly criticised for being far too broad and allowing the police and PF to criminalise any behaviour they disagree with. It’s known as “the fiscal’s flexible friend” for a reason (although fwiw when challenged it has been found to be clear enough to not contravene the right to no punishment without law).

Anyway, having said all that, the Act is a total knee-jerk and a pish piece of legislation. I’ll likely never be penalised under it because I’m quite careful about how I behave and what I sing at football but that doesn’t make it good law, no matter what one particular group of people with unclear knowledge on the subject responding to a very partial question might have quickly clicked whilst completing surveys to make a paltry sum of money.

 

The bigot brothers want it binned, so the parliamentary supporters of the ugly sisters unite to get it repealed, that is the story.

 

[Peppino Impastato]

4 minutes ago, bob the tank said:

 

The bigot brothers want it binned, so the parliamentary supporters of the ugly sisters unite to get it repealed, that is the story.

 

Yup.  Look at the people that utter scumbag Kelly asked in his laughable survey.  Srsly Google it.

[The OP]

18 minutes ago, bob the tank said:

 

The bigot brothers want it binned, so the parliamentary supporters of the ugly sisters unite to get it repealed, that is the story.

 

And daft diddies and people who don’t care about football support it out of spite and/or ignorance rather than reasoned opinion, that is very clear.

[sophia]

I think it's an over simplification to portray this as just a bigotry thing.

Football stadiums seem to be fair game for the most outrageous behaviour.

There's an angry family that sit near me, they flagellate and offend with no idea on their absurdity.

Referees are their speciality; first few minutes last Saturday and in the context of a benign game.... "you're a f***ing pr1ck like the rest of them"

There's no humour, no nuance, just common or garden aggression. It seems to me to speak of an underlying male tension which is an ugly and disfiguring thing.

It's time for a change.

[bob the tank]

And daft diddies and people who don’t care about football support it out of spite and/or ignorance rather than reasoned opinion, that is very clear.

Bullshit, it's not the 19th century anymore, only unionists want sectarianism back to divide Scotlands population for the sake of their precious UK.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

 

Facts and figures on how the act is actually being used which hopefully can help inform debate

 

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/06/7620/4

 

Although the last reported year is exceptional given that it included the mass pitch invasion and breakdown of public order at the Hibs vs Rangers final

 

Nonetheless to characterise this act as being exclusively about sectarianism and principally targeting the old firm wasn’t correct to begin with and is even less so now

 

The proportion of charges filed under “Religion” has steadily fallen from 40% when the act first appeared to 15%

 

 

[Jeff Venom]

And filed under what? Anyone watch the recent OF game? I take the "minority" clearly audible on tv singing "f**k the pope and IRA" were all arrested and charged, yeah?

[Baxter Parp]

21 hours ago, The Master said:

I'd rather something was done about bigotry full stop. 

Why single out football?

'Cos that's where a lot of untrammelled  bigotry is.

[Baxter Parp]

8 hours ago, Jeff Venom said:

And filed under what? Anyone watch the recent OF game? I take the "minority" clearly audible on tv singing "f**k the pope and IRA" were all arrested and charged, yeah?

What do you think the consequences of the police wading into a crowd of football fans and arresting 10,000 or 20,000 of them would be?