ian1964 10,409 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 A police officer has been found guilty of breaching the peace after he was heard singing pro-IRA songs and challenged by an off-duty colleague. But a sheriff ruled that Christopher Halaka had not committed a sectarian offence because he had not wanted to cause "ill-will" to a particular group. Halaka, 31, was drunk on a night out in Perth with his uncle when they were heard singing the songs. Both Halaka and his uncle Laurence Winters, 43, were fined Ã?£250. Halaka also faces an internal inquiry by Strathclyde Police where he works as a Pc. Perth Sheriff Court heard that the pair left one woman in tears as they aggressively confronted people waiting in a taxi queue and had to be tackled by an off-duty detective from Strathclyde Police. Det Con Ian Cameron told the three-day trial he stepped in to try and stop Halaka and Winters from singing pro-terrorist songs. He said: "I can remember bits of the song - 'wearing a black beret' - and there was a phrase, either to 'join up' or 'up the' IRA. 'Pride stung' "There was also a mention of Bobby Sands. I took it to be an IRA song because I believe Bobby Sands was a member of the IRA in the 1980s." Halaka's solicitor David McKie claimed Det Con Ian Cameron had called in Tayside Police because he felt the pair had "taken the Mickey" when he told them to stop singing because people were offended. He told the court that Det Con Cameron had admitted being a Rangers supporter who attended football matches at Ibrox, and had "his pride stung" when the men mocked him. Continue reading the main story ââ?¬Å?Start Quote It was a breach of the peace in a public street and caused offence to members of the public who had been enjoying the night outââ?¬Â End Quote Sheriff Mark Stewart But the detective said he had phoned police when another group of men came forward to confront the duo as he was afraid "it was going to kick off". And he said Winters, who was formerly in the Territorial Army, threatened to "find out where he lived". Both accused had been charged with committing a breach of the peace aggravated by religious prejudice in central Perth on 28 December 2009. Sheriff Mark Stewart deleted the reference to religious aggravation before finding them guilty of breaching the peace. He said: "It is the verdict of the court that a breach of the peace has been proved against both of you. You conducted yourself in a disorderly manner and shouted and swore. "It was a breach of the peace in a public street and caused offence to members of the public who had been enjoying the night out." He accepted the offence was out of character. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12853156 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I doubt he's the only one who's did this. What a tool though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Makes no difference if he was the only one or not. The reality is that the sentencing is inconsistent with sentencing of Rangers fans being charged with EXACTLY the same thing - they are differentiating offences based on footballing/religious preference. There was a Rangers fan charged with sectarianism (or similar), at a game, who got 3 months IIRC - yet these twats are doing EXACTLY the same thing - and getting a fucking 250 quid fine. Disparity ? Inequality ? You better fucking believe it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim1955 12 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It will be interesting to see what the action, if any, taken by his employers will be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk...entral-12853156 Strathclyde Police officer guilty over pro-IRA chanting Christopher Halaka is a Pc at Strathclyde PoliceRelated StoriesPc charged over pro-IRA chantingA police officer has been found guilty of breaching the peace after he was heard singing pro-IRA songs and challenged by an off-duty colleague. But a sheriff ruled that Christopher Halaka had not committed a sectarian offence because he had not wanted to cause "ill-will" to a particular group. Halaka, 31, was drunk on a night out in Perth with his uncle when they were heard singing the songs. Both Halaka and his uncle Laurence Winters, 43, were fined Ã?£250. Halaka also faces an internal inquiry by Strathclyde Police where he works as a Pc. Perth Sheriff Court heard that the pair left one woman in tears as they aggressively confronted people waiting in a taxi queue and had to be tackled by an off-duty detective from Strathclyde Police. Det Con Ian Cameron told the three-day trial he stepped in to try and stop Halaka and Winters from singing pro-terrorist songs. He said: "I can remember bits of the song - 'wearing a black beret' - and there was a phrase, either to 'join up' or 'up the' IRA. "There was also a mention of Bobby Sands. I took it to be an IRA song because I believe Bobby Sands was a member of the IRA in the 1980s." Halaka's solicitor David McKie claimed Det Con Ian Cameron had called in Tayside Police because he felt the pair had "taken the Mickey" when he told them to stop singing because people were offended. He told the court that Det Con Cameron had admitted being a Rangers supporter who attended football matches at Ibrox, and had "his pride stung" when the men mocked him. It was a breach of the peace in a public street and caused offence to members of the public who had been enjoying the night outââ?¬ÂSheriff Mark Stewart But the detective said he had phoned police when another group of men came forward to confront the duo as he was afraid "it was going to kick off". And he said Winters, who was formerly in the Territorial Army, threatened to "find out where he lived". Both accused had been charged with committing a breach of the peace aggravated by religious prejudice in central Perth on 28 December 2009. Sheriff Mark Stewart deleted the reference to religious aggravation before finding them guilty of breaching the peace. He said: "It is the verdict of the court that a breach of the peace has been proved against both of you. You conducted yourself in a disorderly manner and shouted and swore. "It was a breach of the peace in a public street and caused offence to members of the public who had been enjoying the night out." He accepted the offence was out of character. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 It will be interesting to see what the action, if any, taken by his employers will be. Given recent events and "summits" there really is only ONE course of action they can take.... but I wont be holding my breath, 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim1955 12 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Given recent events and "summits" there really is only ONE course of action they can take.... but I wont be holding my breath, That will be just ignore it then. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BillyMac Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 if they do not sack him they will lose all the moral high ground that they have been trying to achieve why not start a chant using this policeman's name and asking are you the bigot in the blue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Makes no difference if he was the only one or not. You missed my point. I'm not saying it matters if he's the only one or not but there will be a number of cops up and down the country who have committed the same offence. He'll resign before he's sacked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You missed my point. I'm not saying it matters if he's the only one or not but there will be a number of cops up and down the country who have committed the same offence. He'll resign before he's sacked. I agree with you but he will be asked to resign in a nice sort of a way which doesn't leave him a difficult choice 0 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.