Guest Dutchy Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 It's a crap bill that nobody wants which doesn't address what it's attempting to address, namely, religious bigotry. Stop funding seperate schools would be a far, far better solution to youngsters not understanding each other, but I think the catholics among us know that's the logical conclusion of where things are going, so they're starting their whining early. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted October 7, 2011 Author Share Posted October 7, 2011 A POWERFUL group of MSPs yesterday blamed Scotlandâ??s football chiefs for failing to tackle the scourge of bigotry â??over many yearsâ?. In a damning report on the controversial anti-sectarian measures hurriedly introduced after last season, the nine members of the Holyrood Justice Committee blasted the gameâ??s top ruling bodies, the Scottish Football Assocation and the Scottish Premier League. Although MSPs were split along party lines with five to four in support of the â??flawedâ? Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill, they united to point the finger at those running the game. FREE NEWS UPDATES 24/7...FOLLOW THE SCOTTISH EXPRESS ON TWITTER All those who backed the SNP Governmentâ??s crackdown plans are SNP members, while those against are two Labour, one Tory and one LibDem. Confusion has surrounded exactly what would constitute a sectarian offence. But if passed as it stands, the planned new laws could see fans jailed for up to five years for blessing themselves or singing the National Anthem if it is likely to incite violence. In a statement yesterday the committee said: â??We are united in our dismay that both Scottish football authorities have failed to take firm action to deal with offensive behaviour at games over many years. We also believe that if firm action had been taken earlier, offensive behaviour might have been stamped out or reduced.â? Convener Christine Grahame said: â??Most members agree the Bill is a way forward, a minority are not convinced. But we all agree the football authorities must shoulder some of the blame.â? Earlier yesterday First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour leader Iain Gray clashed over the bill during First Ministerâ??s Questions at Holyrood. Mr Gray said that the draft Bill was â??flawedâ? and added: â??Does the First Minister not recognise that as it stands this legislation cannot be supported?â? But Mr Salmond hit back saying: â??You can think up 100 different reasons for opposing this legislation. Thereâ??s only one reason for supporting it â?? and that is it is the right thing to do.â? Last night a joint statement from SFA chief executive Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster, the SPLâ??s chief executive, said: â??While the Justice Committeeâ??s evidence-gathering provoked a worthwhile public debate, the subsequent report shows a disregard for considerable measures undertaken by both the SFA and SPL. â??We have consistently stated our intention to work together, with all stakeholders, to tackle offensive behaviour, which was explained to the Committee during our evidence sessions. We have also asked, on numerous occasions, for clarity from the Scottish Government and from the police to assist us in drafting a set of behaviours that would be legally enforceable.â? http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276068/MSPs-blame-Scots-football-bosses-over-bigotry-shame 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Fat Eck is only interested in one thing and that's getting as many yes votes in 4 years as he can. Everything else is just a build up to that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 "But if passed as it stands, the planned new laws could see fans jailed for up to five years for blessing themselves or singing the National Anthem if it is likely to incite violence." Pass the bill & bring back Boruc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 But Mr Salmond hit back saying: “You can think up 100 different reasons for opposing this legislation. There’s only one reason for supporting it – and that is it is the right thing to do.” If you can think of 100 reasons why something is wrong, maybe it's just wrong ya fat pie faced mong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I doubt many people would oppose a law as long as it is clearly defined and applied fairly. That isn't the case with this proposed legislation so all we're going to get is more confusion until people like the Lord Advocate and the football authorities actually lead from the front in specifying what songs are proscribed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I doubt many people would oppose a law as long as it is clearly defined and applied fairly. That isn't the case with this proposed legislation so all we're going to get is more confusion until people like the Lord Advocate and the football authorities actually lead from the front in specifying what songs are proscribed. I wouldn't call it a law. It's a license to jail, indiscriminately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 It will be interesting to see how much these extra cases will cost the taxpayer - not to mention the extra funding required for the Unit to apply the law. I'm surprised Labour haven't raised that aspect of the new Bill. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I do wonder where this is going. Firstly, I don't think if the bill passes, it will be as bad as what many opponents suggest. And secondly, any legislation that purports to put all football fans on the same legal footing, is a positive thing in my view. That said, I do recognise that there are flaws in the current proposals and having delayed its passing once, I don't see that happening a second time. Based on this, and the law of unintended consequences, I think the only sensible proposal is for a sunset clause to be inserted, and so that it can be re-evaluated if it does not actually address the issues it is intended to, as many suspect it wont. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Bishop Philip Tartaglia, said; "I share the concerns of the Scottish government that sectarianism should be eradicated from Scottish society. "Fears that the wide remit of the 'offensive behaviour bill' might impinge on the freedom to hold and express otherwise inoffensive views appear to have been recognised and are being addressed. "I particularly welcome the first minister's commitment to track and analyse sectarian crime on an on-going basis using all data relating to Section 74 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003. Clearly, we cannot tackle a problem without first measuring it." The bishop expressed his concerns about the bill in a letter to the first minister, in which he also said the church was "dismayed" over the government's consultation on gay marriage and warned of a "serious chill" in church relations with SNP ministers. But Bishop Tartaglia said the issue remained unresolved, adding: "Our discussions also afforded me an opportunity to reiterate the Catholic Bishops' publicly stated commitment to strenuously oppose any moves towards same sex marriage 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.