BrahimHemdani

Agreed. Based on the legal opinion set out by Uillleam it will depend on whether he says something more than "intend to resign subject to.....". However, Rangers may argue that in the world of football, there is not a great deal of difference between intent and actuality, whether a Tribunal would agree that football is different is another matter. I would still be very surprised if it is not settled out of court.

I don't read the opinion that way at all. So it seems to me that unless Rangers can prove "some other substantial reason" perhaps if Warburton failed to provide the report required for the January Board Meeting, then the three will have a strong case to argue that they did not resign because

In most cases the application of strict liability will be a matter for the SPFL as it would their rules that would be breached rather than the SFA. I accept that much of what I say is my opinion but it is based on the discussions within the JAG/JRG in which I was closely involved in 2011/12. However, the fact of the matter is that strict liability means that UEFA can hold member clubs responsible for the actions of their supporters even if even if the club concerned can prove the absence of any fault or negligence. This is, of course, the opposite of the situation in Scotland, which allows much of the behaviour complained of here to go unpunished. Furthermore as Mr Dornan says: In 2014, the Football Association in England (the FA) introduced a limited form of strict liability with regard to discriminatory crowd misconduct by adding a sentence to its handbook which states that it is no longer a defence for clubs to demonstrate “due diligence” in relation to alleged misconduct of supporters relating to offensive behaviour relating to ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability. However, due diligence is still integral in terms of what sanction may be applied (i.e. the steps clubs may have taken to try and prevent/deal with the behaviour concerned will be taken into account when deciding on the level of sanction). As with the UEFA system of strict liability, the system adopted recently in England could also be considered to inform an appropriate system for Scotland. http://www.parliament.scot/S5MembersBills/Final_Consultation_Document_pdf.pdf At this stage there is no bill, so those that wish to express their opinion might be better responding to the consultation than completing surveys which may or may not be biased or have their own agenda.

My humble apologies, I should have said 8 years later. There is a great deal I could say about the RST's position on the Famine Song but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread, which if I recall is strict liability.

I am pleasantly surprised to see that support for strict liability has now almost doubled to 11% vs 89%. More than 10% of Rangers fans supporting the introduction of strict liability is a very positive sign IMO.

Apparently it is, the man's been charged (see other thread).

Oh dear, here we go again; more of your typical innuendo. The quote refers to 2002, I wasn't involved with RST until ten years later and I don't recall NbM being discussed.

And that's an offence now as well is it? Report me to your favourite polis and get me arrested then.

Would you rather that they hadn't been fined at all, as would be the case in Scotland for the same offences because "reasonably practicable" provides complete defence?

Absolute nonsense; which shows you know nothing about the integrity of survey results. Read back what you just wrote "it's a legitimate question but it's also a stupid" how can it be stupid if it's legitimate?

No it isn't and that's why there's a law that says it's an offence in relation to a regulated football match: expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of— (i) a religious group, (ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation, (iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4), (b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a), © behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in any of those sub-paragraphs, (d) behaviour that is threatening, or (e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

Well it's your choice of course; but I think that to take the survey and no doubt answer the questions according to your own views and then deliberately mislead in terms of the club you support defeats your object in taking the survey. JMHO. As I said I'm in doubt about the result that NbM want as I'm in doubt about the result that Club 1872 want but I don't think you can say that either has a hidden agenda or if you can then they both have.

So you agree it is a legitimate question, thank you very much.

I agree as I said "the term "strict liability" refers to the liability not the sentencing". However, I think that the SFA would be well advised to use independent panels and I would be surprised if that was not written into the rules in due course. I would be shocked if there was not an independent appeal route at the very least.

Not a shock, I forecast 95%; but it won't influence the outcome.

I wouldn't argue with much of that; but it is a fact that we live in a different world now. Drink driving was acceptable back then, you could call a person from Pakistan a P***, gay marriage was a ludicrous concept etc etc

Yes I remember it very well. It is the job of the home Club to prevent such occurrences and difficult as it may seem that is the point of strict liability; there is no defence. If all the numerous offences for which Celtic have been fined by UEFA over the years had occurred in Scottish games no action could have been taken against them because "reasonably practicable" offers a 100% defence. Arguing about the severity of the UEFA punishments is another matter entirely.

I agree that the LMA has no standing in Scotland and that this is just posturing. The next step will be that their solicitor will contact Rangers and repeat the unanswered questions, then they will threaten to go to court and then almost certainly there will be an out of court settlement. "The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the Club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new Club that they signed for. After discussion the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated" I think Rangers position is vulnerable on the phrases highlighted above because it seems that the offer to resign was conditional on them getting a new job which they didn't get; and because the resignation was NOT immediately accepted; in fact it was not accepted until 3/4 days after the alleged "offer to resign" was made. It is very difficult to understand why the "resignation" was not accepted in writing on the Tuesday evening, sometime on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest. The fact that it was not accepted until 9.00pm on the Friday casts doubt on Rangers version of events. That said it will all turn on what evidence there is of what was said or offered on the Monday but I still think there will be a compromise settlement; which is why Rangers are rightly not giving any ground at this point.

It is entirely legitimate to ask which club the respondents support so they can show results per club support.

I have no idea, I don't know anything about NbM or how they operate. But there seems no doubt that they support strict liability and would like the survey to show that they have public support. I thought it was well balanced and I suspect it was drawn up professionally. It is entirely legitimate to ask which club the respondents support so they can show results per club support. Equally I assume that Club 1872, like most but not all (as evidenced on here) Rangers fans are opposed to strict liability, hence theirsurvey which they know will show the opposite view. I wouldn't be surprised if every club in the land (Celtic included) produce their own survey showing their fans are 95% opposed and that's precisely the reason (plus the Clubs being opposed) why it will come into place.

Since when is the SFA responsible for arresting fans for public order or any other offences? Your anecdotes have nothing whatsoever to do with strict liability because as I said it is the Clubs that will be in the dock not the individual fans and references to the season being extended, tours etc are not examples of unacceptable conduct of fans.

That's exactly the point, thank you very much; at last some sense in the debate.

I made a genuine offer and that's the kind of thoroughly cretinous, smart arsed comment for which you are renowned; when all you could put up on the thread was unsubstantiated innuendo. I am happy to argue the benefits of strict liability with anyone including those on supporters buses that I have travelled on from time to time.

None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with strict liability. 1) the judges will not be the charging authority 2) your issue about the Cup Final is with the police and the procurator fiscal, who have nothing to do with the football authorities 3) and you know that how? You have yet to produce any evidence to show that strict liability is not the fairest way to deal with unacceptable conduct of fans. Are you saying that you disagree with the numerous fines imposed on Celtic FC by UEFA (other than the fact that they might have been higher or the sentences escalated)?