Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[John Lambies Doos]

Look, most fans want 'fruity singing' proscribed. I don't disagree with that - with caveats.

The two high profile arrests, though, have been 1. The Whistle fan done for singing 'FTP and FTQ' and 2. The Coatbridge bloke arrested for his Nazi Dug video last week.

These two cases alone show what a muddle this act has created.

That's not the question. I asked whether u and the majority of fans would challenge a fukwit who was singing Billy boys at a match.. ie self police, a bit like locals do to aid a landlord when a fella is acting the maggot?

[John Lambies Doos]

Mental how many people the parties are doing this due to some bitter hatred of the SNP and not because the legislation itself is utter shite

I agree with you Mr B, however it would be foolhardy to believe that others have not been trying to seek political gain from this... remember oor jum giving out leaflets at the fitba pre his GE humiliation

[The_Kincardine]

That's not the question. I asked whether u and the majority of fans would challenge a fukwit who was singing Billy boys at a match.. ie self police, a bit like locals do to aid a landlord when a fella is acting the maggot?

I surfed over your point as there's an interesting conversation happening that you want to ignore.

 

The answer is yes, though.

[HaikuHibee]

Support for a single bad law that violates human rights basically is fascism, IMO.

 

1. Have a more sensible position then. Be in favour of freedom of speech.

 

2. No it's not. It's the only correct stance anyone can hold.

3. You say that like it's a bad thing. That should be a badge of honour.

 

If you think this act is fascism, you are a fucking idiot. You know fine well that the vast majority of people do not want the this law but want action on the Old Firm. You started off with a fairly sensible position that the SFA should take action. Supporters of the Act said that the SFA can't be trusted. In fact, for as long as I can remember (during the Rangers sectarian signing policy) the SFA and Old Firm continuously said sectarianism was a police issue. Like it or lump it, they wanted the Act. You've gone down a mad libertarian strawman and have called everyone who doesn't agree with you fascist. Simply because you cannot think of a credible Government policy that can deal with the issue that is 1. new or 2. effective. 

Edited May 16, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[John Lambies Doos]

I surfed over your point as there's an interesting conversation happening that you want to ignore.

The answer is yes, though.

Good to hear.

Freedom of speech v preaching hatred.

Songs like the Billy boys should be banned in and out of football grounds

[Jambomo]

Which bit of "I don't think it's necessary or essential" aren't you understanding?

I don't like or agree with the law as you do, however I don't consider it an affront to basic human rights either.

As said I don't see any need to delay repealing the law, as if this isn't just opportunism then they will already have some alternatives under consideration.

And you won't be better off selling Pogba unless you either fix the pitch or buy a better striker. It's foolish to sell him if you have no plans in place to do either of those things 😊

**apologies, I meant to quote Ad-lib, can't sort it on this phone!*^

Edited May 16, 2016 by Jambomo

[Ira Gaines]

I fully expect Ad Lib to ignore that and continue down that line anyways.

Yup.

[Jambomo]

Yup.

Indeed 😄 I should have left this thread ages ago and not bothered 😞

[The_Kincardine]

Its only created a muddle recently in your head as the second guy wouldnt have been arrested under that act...

You're talking shite. 

 

He was arrested under the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.  Same act, china.

 

I posted about this over here:  http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/229336-offensive-behaviour-at-football-act/?p=10450310

Edited May 16, 2016 by The_Kincardine

[Ad Lib]

Yup.

This will be "ignored" in the sense that I replied to every single aspect of it? Okay.

[Ad Lib]

If you think this act is fascism, you are a fucking idiot. You know fine well that the vast majority of people do not want the this law but want action on the Old Firm. You started off with a fairly sensible position that the SFA should take action. Supporters of the Act said that the SFA can't be trusted. In fact, for as long as I can remember (during the Rangers sectarian signing policy) the SFA and Old Firm continuously said sectarianism was a police issue. Like it or lump it, they wanted the Act. You've gone down a mad libertarian strawman and have called everyone who doesn't agree with you fascist. Simply because you cannot think of a credible Government policy that can deal with the issue that is 1. new or 2. effective.

Ah, HaikuHimmler, always a sad wee fascist. Hibees though... MINTER.

Which bit of "I don't think it's necessary or essential" aren't you understanding?

I don't like or agree with the law as you do, however I don't consider it an affront to basic human rights either.

Then you are insufficiently correct and need to correct yourself.

As said I don't see any need to delay repealing the law, as if this isn't just opportunism then they will already have some alternatives under consideration.

The logical inference of this is that if they don't have alternatives, it is opportunism, so there should be a delay repealing the law. Otherwise that isn't the reason you now say you don't see any need to delay repealing the law.

I think we should repeal the law even if it increases sectarianism, because criminalising speech is fascism.

And you won't be better off selling Pogba unless you either fix the pitch or buy a better striker. It's foolish to sell him if you have no plans in place to do either of those things

**apologies, I meant to quote Ad-lib, can't sort it on this phone!*^

I put it to you you haven't seen Matthias Pogba on a football pitch. The man's worse than a man down even when he's on the bench.

[HaikuHibee]

YES, I SAID FASCISM. EVERYBODY ARE FASCISM. HIMMLER WAS FASCISM.

[The_Kincardine]

Ah, HaikuHimmler, always a sad wee fascist. Hibees though... MINTER.

Libby, I agree with most of what you said earlier.  Sometime, though, you have just to shut the f**k up.

[Ad Lib]

Libby, I agree with most of what you said earlier.  Sometime, though, you have just to shut the f**k up.

Kincardine failure. Doesn't understand context. Classic Currant Bun.

[The_Kincardine]

Kincardine failure. Doesn't understand context. Classic Currant Bun.

Drone incessantly all you like, then.  Use the same tropes as every other diddy, too.

[The_Kincardine]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-politics-of-hatred/

 

This is an astonishing read.  If I didn't know the guy had previous then I'd say it was a parody of a post. Absolutely not one person can take that seriously.  He, not unsurprisingly, has a 'donate' link on his site.

 

Wee note to Div:  Given that folk seem happy to contribute to the inane, rambling nonsense of disaffected morons can we put a PayPal button on The Big Thread?  I'll go halfers with you.

[vikingTON]

Not the first time that posters have commented on the fact that WoS is a penis - which he probably is - without actually being able to rebut the *political* analysis of the opposition parties involved. Or in this particular case, the fact that the vast majority of the Scottish population back the legislation; or, additionally, the fact that the independent analysis of the impact of the Act surprisingly enough did not uncover the supposed litany of injustices being carried out under the horrible Act.

 

Assuming that Holyrood isn't entirely stacked with law squad posturers like the busted flush, that paucity of the political case for attacking the Act ought to easily trumpt the endless reams of utterly pointless, 'freedom isn't free' libertarian garbage on here. 

[mjw]

The only button 'the big thread' needs.

[The_Kincardine]

Assuming that Holyrood isn't entirely stacked with law squad posturers like the busted flush, that paucity of the political case for attacking the Act ought to easily trumpt the endless reams of utterly pointless, 'freedom isn't free' libertarian garbage on here. 

This is both nonsense and doesn't reflect the views most posters who oppose the act have.

 

The legislation is pernicious and ignorant.  You actually know this but, as is your wont, are taking a contrary view.

[vikingTON]

The independent analysis conducted on the impacts of the Act found that neither of the above claims held any substance. Another trite but ultimately groundless soundbite then; thanks for playing anyway. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by vikingTON