Will mainstream media report on sectarian singing by British troops?

[andy steel 0]

It would be the height of irony to pay soldiers to kill terrorists, then discipline them for singing about it.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Greenslag is a IRA supporting scumbag, he probably celebrated when the IRA were bombing London.

[Chibmark 15]

Missed the game yesterday but can't say that I disagree that these songs should not be sung at our ground.

 

Although disappointed that AGAIN we're getting a bad press, I have long argued that our fans shouldn't sing songs that are not football related or deemed to be offensive.

[Bluedell 5,330]

I have long argued that our fans shouldn't sing songs that are not football related or deemed to be offensive.

 

So we shouldn't sing Penny Arcade?

 

Who defines what is offensive? Celtic fans? Are there any of our songs that they don't find offensive?

[andy steel 0]

I know from past experience that you won't agree here, but its not that hard to differentiate between songs like 'Penny Arcade' and songs about slimfit jeans wearing Irish terrorists.

 

It takes a degree of willful denial to say otherwise, tbh.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Which "sectarian" songs were sung that I missed?

 

If anything, they might be deemed "political" songs, much like what they always air on the other side of the Clyde? Bi-polar relation with reality ...

[bossy 0]

It doesn't really matter what we sing, people like Greenslade and the other permanently offended ones will find something to whine about.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So we shouldn't sing Penny Arcade?

 

Who defines what is offensive? Celtic fans? Are there any of our songs that they don't find offensive?

 

I am surprised at these comments from you BD, since I am sure you are well aware that offensive behaviour at football matches is defined in the Act as follows:

 

1

Offensive behaviour at regulated football matches

(1)

A person commits an offence if, in relation to a regulated football match—

 

(a)

the person engages in behaviour of a kind described in subsection (2), and

(b)

the behaviour—

(i)

is likely to incite public disorder, or

(ii)

would be likely to incite public disorder.

(2)

The behaviour is—

 

(a)

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.

(3)

For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) and (b) it is irrelevant whether the hatred is also

based (to any extent) on any other factor.

(4)

The things referred to in subsection (2)(a)(iii) are—

 

 

(a)

colour,

(b)

race,

©

nationality (including citizenship),

(d)

ethnic or national origins,

(e)

sexual orientation,

 

(f)

transgender identity,

(g)

disability.

 

For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii), behaviour would be likely to incite public

disorder if public disorder would be likely to occur but for the fact that—

(a)

measures are in place to prevent public disorder, or

 

(b)

persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in

sufficient numbers.

 

I don't understand the reference to Penny Arcade, which is a song about playing slot machines. The fact that it is sung at Ibrox and begins with the line "Blue Turned into Green, then it was Red" doesn't make it a Rangers song, nor could it remotely be considered offensive to anyone including the mythical "reasonable person" on the no.9 Clapham Omnibus or the First Bus no. 43 to Parkhead for that matter (if there are any reasonable people who travel on that bus).

 

(Just for information I did argue this point at the time. I told the Minister, Roseanna Cunningham that in my opinion the "reasonable person" test was unreasonabale in the context of Scottish football, but she did not agree.)

 

That said I didn't hear any offensive songs at all on Saturday, not even the usual ones with the offensive word versions omitted.

Edited September 29, 2013 by BrahimHemdani

[pete 2,499]

Loved the remark to the Celtic bigots who were complaining in the posts under the film.

 

Our teams result today was in memory of Bobbie Sands. Eight nothing. Love it.

[der Berliner 3,247]

The point remains that apart from TBB and any FTP add-ons, there's hardly anything concrete when it comes to the "Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill". Some Yahoos are lifted for singing Sean South or Boys of the Old Brigade, but when it is mass-aired at the Scumhut (even when they are under UEFA jurisdiction), there's deep silence complete. Some are convicted for singing these songs, whereas some sheriffs simply dismiss it as football banter. Essentially it is a farce. Even more so when you take into consideration that the Yahoos are openly heaping praise on a terrorist organisation that killed Scots (sic!) troops as much as anyone else, to this day. That they are openly heaping praise on those killers of Lee Digby. And just to top it all, if they claim they are singing "political songs and statements", that would a) be as much a reason to ban them from the ground as anything else (it is a football ground, after all), and b) would strengthen the validity of and case for the Terrorist Act 2006:

 

1 Encouragement of terrorism

(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

 

(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—

 

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and

(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being

glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances

 

2 Dissemination of terrorist publications

(4) For the purposes of this section matter that is likely to be understood by a person as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism includes any matter which—

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts; and

(b) is matter from which that person could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by him in existing circumstances

 

Terrorism Act 2006 (opens PDF)