Offensive Behaviour at Football Act cave in.

[Ad Lib]

Enjoying how VT seems to think Governments need legislation to do anything.

That's a big problem with the SMBD brigade. No appreciation between responding and responding proportionately to the issue.

[vikingTON]

Apart from the ability to arrest young men who are outside their houses on a Saturday, for anything a police officer takes objection to

 

Hate to break it to you champ, but that was already the case. Go outside and start screeching your head off about 17th Century Irish battles, the Nazis or the Antiques fucking Roadshow for a long enough period, disturbing others in society and you can be charged for BOTP if a police officer sees fit. I don't see too many banners of injustice being put up for that legislation though; bizarrely, it is being lionised as somehow being the sound law derailed by the big nasty Football Act. Which is utter bollocks. 

 

 

how does the act tackle sectarianism in a way that was unavailable to the authorities pre-2012?

 

The act sets up a specific criminal charge under which perpetrators can be prosecuted; more importantly, however, it signals to the Police that sectarian chanting in any public place or the semi-private domain of a football ground should be a priority to take action against. BOTP does not achieve this because, well, BOTP can mean absolutely anything. 

[strichener]

Well done on spectacularly missing the point.

It shouldn't be a criminal offence to be offensive ANYWHERE.

This is just nonsense.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

Hate to break it to you champ, but that was already the case. Go outside and start screeching your head off about 17th Century Irish battles, the Nazis or the Antiques fucking Roadshow for a long enough period, disturbing others in society and you can be charged for BOTP if a police officer sees fit. I don't see too many banners of injustice being put up for that legislation though; bizarrely, it is being lionised as somehow being the sound law derailed by the big nasty Football Act. Which is utter bollocks. 

 

 

The act sets up a specific criminal charge under which perpetrators can be prosecuted; more importantly, however, it signals to the Police that sectarian chanting in any public place or the semi-private domain of a football ground should be a priority to take action against. BOTP does not achieve this because, well, BOTP can mean absolutely anything. 

 

The Football Act can also mean absolutely anything. It's ridiculous that you're failing to understand this basic point.

[vikingTON]

Telling the police to enforce the law, 

 

Seems legit. Just 'tell' the Police to enforce the BOTP Act at all football matches at all times? Impractical and even more arbitrary than the Act. Which elements of fan behaviour that fall under BOTP would be dealt with? How should a police officer exercise their own judgement on that matter?

 

The bottom line is that vaguely 'telling' the police to comply with already existing legislation is a non-starter. They've turned a blind eye for years because that has been the most practical option. If you want to see how mealy-mouthed 'instructions' are working out in terms of controlling behaviour, see Scotrail's no-drinking policy in the evenings, which no-one credibly enforces because it isn't worth their hassle. A sash bash held under the auspices of the current Act is more likely to see heads knocked together for a failure to police the event than a BOTP being committed. There are dozens of potential BOTPs taking place every Saturday afternoon. 

 

or indeed refusing to police games until the SFA deal with the issue would be taking action. 

 

 

1. The Scottish Government isn't in a legitimate position to instruct the police whether to control public events. Despite the shrieking of the opposition to the contrary, Scotland is not a Stalinist autocracy and Police Scotland do not act as the enforcement wing at the whim of the Scottish Government. 

 

2. The Scottish Government also isn't in a legitimate position to apply political pressure whatsoever upon the SFA. That is the sort of behaviour that sees footballing authorities being suspended by FIFA.

 

Other than those two fairly obvious and massive, gaping holes in your otherwise sound alternative, that definitely sounds like a goer. 

[Ad Lib]

The act sets up a specific criminal charge under which perpetrators can be prosecuted; more importantly, however, it signals to the Police that sectarian chanting in any public place or the semi-private domain of a football ground should be a priority to take action against. BOTP does not achieve this because, well, BOTP can mean absolutely anything.

This is risible.

1. There isn't a principled reason for the existence of the offences, or for making them apply only to people going to or from or being at a football match.

2. The police should not punish sectarian chanting.

3. Even if they should punish sectarian chanting they should not "target" those in football grounds over and above anywhere else

4. It's just a fiction that BOTP is useless or "can mean anything". It's true it loses rule of law issues but that is an argument for excluding more conduct from BOTP not widening its net further with supplementary criminal charges

5. There is zero evidence that the Offensive Behaviour (etc.) Act has led to a decrease in offensive behaviour, threatening communications or a reduction in sectarian chanting (at football or elsewhere) or that it has even had the effect of reducing the preponderance of sectarian violence. It is the perfect example of an inefficacious law that lacks even an in principle justification for existing.

[Ira Gaines]

3. Even if they should punish sectarian chanting they should not "target" those in football grounds over and above anywhere else

 

This is pretty much the root of the problem for me.

[vikingTON]

The Football Act can also mean absolutely anything. It's ridiculous that you're failing to understand this basic point.

 

So why are you shrieking for the end of the Football Act and a return to BOTP? I think you'll find that I fully understand the issue - the Football Act provides an incentive for the police to take firm action around behaviour at football matches, which would fall under BOTP legislation anyway. That incentive has been provide in lieu of any credible measures by the footballing authorities themselves to tackle the obvious issue. 

 

So the outcome of repealing the Football Act and returning to BOTP would:

 

1) not actually remove the 'arbitrary!!!!1111!!' nature of the law surrounding behaviour in a public space or football ground. That has always been in place. 

2) remove any incentive for the police to take action against sectarian hate chants reverberating around Scottish football grounds in the 21st Century and by this stage

3) convince the mouthbreathers that their behaviour is now in fact *not* covered under legislation and encourage them to carry on or even worsen their scumbag behaviour.

 

Repealing the Football Act then would be a ludicrous decision, forced upon a Scottish Government by a few parties who postured on the measure in opposition rather than providing an alternative to the existing measures. Can it be amended? Of course. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

 

Seems legit. Just 'tell' the Police to enforce the BOTP Act at all football matches at all times? Impractical and even more arbitrary than the Act. Which elements of fan behaviour that fall under BOTP would be dealt with? How should a police officer exercise their own judgement on that matter?

 

 

Quoting directly:

 

"the behaviour is—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive."

 

 

"a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated football match whether or not the person attended or intended to attend the match,"

 

It is not possible to be more arbitrary and vague than that. It covers anyone, doing anything, anywhere.

 

How does a police officer decide what is offensive, and what is to be allowable at a football match, and do it consistently? Your argument has been a load of circular nonsense.

[Ad Lib]

This is just nonsense.

No it isn't. "Being offensive" should not be a crime. Offence is necessarily subjective and not something the state should seek to eliminate.

It is necessary if freedom of speech is to mean anything that the criminal law places no impediment to the expression of views that are offensive and hurtful.

[Mr Bairn]

Fans should basically be allowed to sing what they like

[vikingTON]

This is pretty much the root of the problem for me.

 

This is a straw man though. The reality is that behaviour in football grounds was less of a priority prior to the Act - due to the impracticality of policing the event to the letter of the law. So the 'targeting' that you suggest is in fact an attempt to police behaviour surrounding football matches in a manner comparable to those at any other public event. That is the clear historical context that led to the Football Act being passed. If you have evidence that football fans are in practice being disproportionately targeted at the moment, then feel free to put it forward.

[John Lambies Doos]

Fans should basically be allowed to sing what they like

Thin line there tho Mr B...

Ie between freedom of speech and inciting hatred.

A political and legal minefield

[Ad Lib]

2) remove any incentive for the police to take action against sectarian hate chants reverberating around Scottish football grounds in the 21st Century

Good. It's not the job of the Police to tell people what they can and cannot say, sing or chant. Their job at a football match is to prevent public disorder and violence and to assist stewards with the eviction of spectators who have breached the terms of admission. Their obligations stop where the threat of public disorder or violence ends.

3) convince the mouthbreathers that their behaviour is now in fact *not* covered under legislation and encourage them to carry on or even worsen their scumbag behaviour.

Decriminalisation of cannabis might encourage people to toke up in public places to the inconvenience of others. That isn't a justification for criminalising possesses of cannabis.

Repealing the Football Act then would be a ludicrous decision, forced upon a Scottish Government by a few parties who postured on the measure in opposition rather than providing an alternative to the existing measures. Can it be amended? Of course.

You are showing a total lack of understanding of both the measures at a government's disposal and the measures adopted by the Scottish Government.

The other parties did not oppose all the measures the Scottish Government took to discourage and eliminate sectarian attitudes and behaviours in wider society. They only opposed the very specific legislative measures that criminalised football fans.

There is plenty that can and is being done to tackle sectarianism around which there is a massive political consensus. It's just that the Assault on Freedom of Speech for the Spectators of a Specific Sport Act isn't part of it.

[Ad Lib]

This is a straw man though. The reality is that behaviour in football grounds was less of a priority prior to the Act - due to the impracticality of policing the event to the letter of the law. So the 'targeting' that you suggest is in fact an attempt to police behaviour surrounding football matches in a manner comparable to those at any other public event. That is the clear historical context that led to the Football Act being passed. If you have evidence that football fans are in practice being disproportionately targeted at the moment, then feel free to put it forward.

The existence of an offence specific to them is ipso facto a disproportionate targetting.

[vikingTON]

Quoting directly:

 

"the behaviour is—

(e)other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive."

 

 

"a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a regulated football match whether or not the person attended or intended to attend the match,"

 

It is not possible to be more arbitrary and vague than that. It covers anyone, doing anything, anywhere.

 

How does a police officer decide what is offensive, and what is to be allowable at a football match, and do it consistently? Your argument has been a load of circular nonsense.

 

Explain how the 'arbitrary' nature of the Football Act differs in a significant manner from the 'arbitrary' nature of the already existing BOTP legislation please. Are you calling for BOTP to repealed as well; if not, why not?

 

If you have a philosophical issue with arbitrary laws being used to govern behaviour in (predominantly) public spaces, then you might have a problem living within just about every society on the planet. In reality, both BOTP and the Football Act are largely governed to a high level of common sense: which is an absolutely necessary trait in order to control public order without being an authoritarian shithole. There is no evidence that arresting some mouthbreathers chanting at a football match tips Scotland towards the latter, so your concern is disregarded. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by vikingTON

[John Lambies Doos]

The existence of an offence specific to them is ipso facto a disproportionate targetting.

Ipso facto )

[HaikuHibee]

 

2. The police should not punish sectarian chanting.

 

 

Well that's just bollocks. If Rangers sang "muslim blood", their fans would be banned.

Edited May 15, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[vikingTON]

Naturally I have the Busted Flush on ignore, but it's absolutely no surprise to see the posturer who advocated incest white knighting for mouthbreathing bigots on behalf of his weirdo, libertarian philosophy. 

Edited May 15, 2016 by vikingTON

[Mr Bairn]

Thin line there tho Mr B...

Ie between freedom of speech and inciting hatred.

A political and legal minefield

 

 

Inciting hatred is saying things like "kill all Jews" or "Infidels should die" etc

 

Singing about Craig Gowans dying or the potato famine or Jason Cummings being a paedophile is in bad taste but shouldn't be illegal IMO.