SPFL clear timz over H block banner

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Sorry, Andy but I don't buy that. The statement says Celtic took all possible steps to prevent the banner being shown. No-one took any steps to stop it. It wasn't smuggled in and put up for 30 seconds. It was taken in - and it was big - by vermin who had previous for taking in banners, it was held up by many fans and was in full view. Nothing was done to deter this, quite the opposite.

 

It is not paranoia to complain re this:

"However, Celtic FC were able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the banner being displayed at Celtic Park."

 

Quite so and remember that is an INTERNAL SPL investigation carried out I think by the SPL Secretary Ian Blair the result of which was that Celtic were not even charged with any offence.

 

So long as a Club can demonstrate:

 

1. They made announcements etc prior to the incident
   
2. They did what they could to deal with it at the time (which might just be advising the Police or even just observing it; I don't know the standards that are applied in practice)
   
3. They made further announcements afterwards.
   

 

 

They will not be charged with any offence under the SPL Rules as they stand.

 

Exactly the same defence was used in 2011 http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/288082/SFA-clear-Celtic-after-chant-probe

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I agree with this. Surely CFC are admitting they are culpable when they make the statement ...

"Celtic condemned the display of the banners shortly after, saying they had not been approved by the club and were not welcome within the stadium."

They must accept vicarious responsibilty for their stewards being lax in their remit when they allowed entrance to the banner but did not check its content.

Even after what you've said BH you would think that CFC should be charged, if not under the Terrorism Act, then under the new OBA by the police.

Also when they banned the GB for their behaviour, surely once again they were admitting that they were guilty of allowing an offence to take place.

 

I'm not sure that you are correct about vicarious liablity in respect of the criminal law; but I don't think Celtic could be charged under the OBA unless the Club actually engaged in conduct that was offensive (steady!) AND likely to provoke public disorder. I may be mistaken but I don't think that (even if you could prove that they deliberately allowed the conduct by their fans or even turned a blind eye to it) they could be charged with a criminal offence for the actions of their fans.

 

However football rules are different and if it had happened at a UEFA controlled match they would have had no defence. But in the SPL if you made announcements, employ the prescribed number of stewards etc, it will be held that you did enough. Remember again that Hearts were not charged because a steward was not able to stop the attack on Lennon.

 

On the contrary when they banned fans for unacceptable conduct that adds weight to their defence.

Edited February 4, 2014 by BrahimHemdani
Added "if you made announcements etc"

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think that BD has touched on another aspect, again one that I raised in 2011; namely that if the same offence or the same type of offence continues to ocur, then in my opinion that is prima facie evidence that whatever action the Club has taken is not effective ergo they SHOULD be charged.

 

However the answer I got at the time was the typical each case will be dealt with on its merits.

 

Here again it would probably take government intervention to force a change.

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

That rancid open sore of "football" club is utterly shameless.

 

Is anyone in the least bit surprised by this?

 

Attempting to justify the actions of republican terrorist murderous cowards is away of life for them.

 

Thankfully there are still many who will not allow celtic and their fans to rewrite PIRA/INLA's disgusting and bloodthirsty sectarian history.

[barca72 440]

I'm not sure that you are correct about vicarious liablity in respect of the criminal law; but I don't think Celtic could be charged under the OBA unless the Club actually engaged in conduct that was offensive (steady!) AND likely to provoke public disorder. I may be mistaken but I don't think that (even if you could prove that they deliberately allowed the conduct by their fans or even turned a blind eye to it) they could be charged with a criminal offence for the actions of their fans.

 

However football rules are different and if it had happened at a UEFA controlled match they would have had no defence. But in the SPL if you employ the prescribed number of stewards it will be held tnhat you did enough. Remember again that Hearts were not charged because a steward was not able to stop the attack on Lennon.

 

On the contrary when they banned fans for unacceptable conduct that adds weight to their defence.

 

I don't necessarily agree with your first two paragraphs but I will bow to your greater experience and knowledge of the inner workings of our stalwart footballing authorities. However, I do disagree with your last sentence.

They have agreed that the fans engaged in "unacceptable conduct" therefore, in my eyes anyway, they are admitting that they as a club refused to prevent said conduct and since they knew of the banner being brought into the ground { remember they said that the banner was not approved implying that other banners were approved } they have to accept that what is on the banner has their approval. Otherwise what is the point of having stewards ( police ) scan fans as they enter?

Ergo since they have stated ad nauseum, that they are in reasonably constant contact with the representatives of the GB, then they must stand as the only party that can be held responsible for such objectionable displays. No excuses are, or should be, acceptable to the fans of Scottish football. UEFA proved that they were unacceptable to the rest of European football.

[barca72 440]

They should accept responsibility, but apparently they don't legally have to.

 

Morally it reeks, but unless bleating about sporting integrity when did morality ever affect sport?

 

Doesn't make it any less hard to stomach, bud.

[der Berliner 3,247]

What it tells us that the SFA and the SPFL are giving both TLB and his toxic club license to do what they like without much fear of punishment. That will - no doubt about that - lead to the most vicious and toxic atmosphere at any Old Firm game people might go to, once it happens by. The media will hype up the frenzy too and rest assured, most if not all blame will be laid on our doorstep. Their actions* have prepared the stage for that.

 

*As in, Scum FC, SFA, SPFL and essentially all connected authorities.

 

I vividly remember the scenes at the dugout and tunnel with their management team essentially goading Diouf, Bartley, Weiss and Co., having a go at Ally too. What was the fallout? Nothing but shame and punishment for us and ours. Scummery and thuggery from top to bottom.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't necessarily agree with your first two paragraphs but I will bow to your greater experience and knowledge of the inner workings of our stalwart footballing authorities. However, I do disagree with your last sentence.

They have agreed that the fans engaged in "unacceptable conduct" therefore, in my eyes anyway, they are admitting that they as a club refused to prevent said conduct and since they knew of the banner being brought into the ground { remember they said that the banner was not approved implying that other banners were approved } they have to accept that what is on the banner has their approval. Otherwise what is the point of having stewards ( police ) scan fans as they enter?

Ergo since they have stated ad nauseum, that they are in reasonably constant contact with the representatives of the GB, then they must stand as the only party that can be held responsible for such objectionable displays. No excuses are, or should be, acceptable to the fans of Scottish football. UEFA proved that they were unacceptable to the rest of European football.

 

Personally, I find your logic irresistible; but what I am saying is that in terms of the football authorities, the fact that they subsequently banned some of the fans concerned demonstrates that they fulfilled the third condition required to avoid being charged.

 

I agree totally that it shows us up as a little, backward, parochial football "island" where anything goes.

 

I willing to try to put together a letter to Ministers when I get back from Spain next week; but I am not sure if it will carry any weight as I no longer hold any official position.