barca72 440 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 The laws covering what would now be an offence were not in place at the time O'hara wasn't prosecuted because he committed no offense Sorry, RPB, but the laws were already in place long before O'Hara committed his 'crime' ... http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/155706/0041794.pdf USE OF SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED REPORTED CRIME: AN 18 MONTH REVIEW MAIN FINDINGS Update of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Report • When comparing the first six months of operation of Section 74 (27th June 2003 – 31st December 2003) with data for the same period in 2004 (27th June – 31st December 2004) – the number of incidents reported with a religious aggravation increase by 55%. During these 2 time periods, there were broadly similar patterns of Section 74 usage, with the exception that football related offences accounted for a higher percentage of reported cases in June- December 2004 and a higher percentage of cases were brought against 16-20 year olds in June-December 2004. Due to the limited timescale of this comparative exercise, the significance of these fluctuations should not be overemphasised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 The laws covering what would now be an offence were not in place at the time O'hara wasn't prosecuted because he committed no offense Sorry, RPB, but the laws were already in place long before O'Hara committed his 'crime' ... http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/155706/0041794.pdf USE OF SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED REPORTED CRIME: AN 18 MONTH REVIEW MAIN FINDINGS Update of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) Report • When comparing the first six months of operation of Section 74 (27th June 2003 – 31st December 2003) with data for the same period in 2004 (27th June – 31st December 2004) – the number of incidents reported with a religious aggravation increase by 55%. During these 2 time periods, there were broadly similar patterns of Section 74 usage, with the exception that football related offences accounted for a higher percentage of reported cases in June- December 2004 and a higher percentage of cases were brought against 16-20 year olds in June-December 2004. Due to the limited timescale of this comparative exercise, the significance of these fluctuations should not be overemphasised. What you've posted is of no relevance to this case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 What you've posted is of no relevance to this case. Perhaps not but dont you think it is hyper-critical of the SNP to endorse a candidate guilty of an earlier offence which they later sought to criminalise ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 What you've posted is of no relevance to this case. What are you talking about, no relevance? Surely the whole point of this thread is to show how hypocritical the SNP are. The point is not that O'Hara was actually charged and convicted of "religiously aggravated breach of the peace", but that the law was in place to charge and convict him since 2003. Just because Mulholland ( or his predecessor ) and the Justice Minister of the time did not have their police and/or the CPS instruments in active response mode in his direction does not mean that O'Hara was any less guilty of having committed a crime. I think that what that review shows is that the politicians used those facts, and especially since it appears that police action was directed at 16-20 year olds, to help create the abominable OBA. Which in my mind now that the facts about O'Hara have surfaced, should be all the more reason for the SNP to stand O'Hara down. Whomever said earlier in this thread that you should stand for a political office had the rights of it. You seem to have a propensity for ignoring legal facts when it suits you, using marginal data with a fervour and stating them as facts when it suits you, and in between times talking a whole load of pish. Who else do we know that does that ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 What are you talking about, no relevance?Surely the whole point of this thread is to show how hypocritical the SNP are. The point is not that O'Hara was actually charged and convicted of "religiously aggravated breach of the peace", but that the law was in place to charge and convict him since 2003. Just because Mulholland ( or his predecessor ) and the Justice Minister of the time did not have their police and/or the CPS instruments in active response mode in his direction does not mean that O'Hara was any less guilty of having committed a crime. I think that what that review shows is that the politicians used those facts, and especially since it appears that police action was directed at 16-20 year olds, to help create the abominable OBA. Which in my mind now that the facts about O'Hara have surfaced, should be all the more reason for the SNP to stand O'Hara down. Whomever said earlier in this thread that you should stand for a political office had the rights of it. You seem to have a propensity for ignoring legal facts when it suits you, using marginal data with a fervour and stating them as facts when it suits you, and in between times talking a whole load of pish. Who else do we know that does that ... Never takes you very long to resort to personal insults, does it? What you have posted is a review document of the workings of some legislation. The document has nothing whatsoever to do with O'Hara nor with the instance of the character who was charged for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. You claim that he was charged with religious agrravation simply for wearing a t-shirt with the word Hun on it. Utter nonsense, of course. Find out what the charge actually was and what he was actually charged with doing and saying, then get back to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Perhaps not but dont you think it is hyper-critical of the SNP to endorse a candidate guilty of an earlier offence which they later sought to criminalise ? no because, for the 100th time, what he said was not an offense when he said it. Others have dodged the question, so I'll try my luck with you. Should you be criminalised for drink driving because you have driven with an alcohol blood level higher than that which was intoduced a couple of months ago? If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 no because, for the 100th time, what he said was not an offense when he said it. Others have dodged the question, so I'll try my luck with you. Should you be criminalised for drink driving because you have driven with an alcohol blood level higher than that which was intoduced a couple of months ago? If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal? He should have been removed on a point of principle. That is why. Had a candidate(of any party) referred to f@nians I can just imagine the furore 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 He should have been removed on a point of principle. That is why.Had a candidate(of any party) referred to f@nians I can just imagine the furore The principle presumably being that you can be punished retrospectively if the law changes? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 no because, for the 100th time, what he said was not an offense when he said it. Others have dodged the question, so I'll try my luck with you. Should you be criminalised for drink driving because you have driven with an alcohol blood level higher than that which was intoduced a couple of months ago? If not, why should O'Hara be punished for his comments which, while stupid, were legal? RPB - I think you you should pratice what you preach re reading posts properly - However I dont think anyone is seriously expecting O'Hara to be prosecuted - its the utter hypocrisy of the SNP position over this matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Never takes you very long to resort to personal insults, does it? What you have posted is a review document of the workings of some legislation. The document has nothing whatsoever to do with O'Hara nor with the instance of the character who was charged for religiously aggravated breach of the peace. You claim that he was charged with religious agrravation simply for wearing a t-shirt with the word Hun on it. Utter nonsense, of course. Find out what the charge actually was and what he was actually charged with doing and saying, then get back to me. Let's get something straight first with no denying and no deflection. Are you saying that - 'SECTION 74 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003 - RELIGIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CRIME' - did not exist? 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.