BJK today

[Bearman 9]

I always remember the first time I learned of Big Jock 'knowing'.

 

One day during work about 13 years ago I was driving through Bargeddie and spray painted on a wall in fairly big letters was 'BIG JOCK KNEW'.

 

I wondered what it meant, then almost immediately it drifted from my thoughts. Next day I drove past the same place and again saw the scrawled message couldn't miss it really.

 

It wasn't until I saw the same 'message' some time later in another part of Glasgow which brought it to my attention in what the daubing's actually meant, admittedly I was gobsmacked when I found out.

 

Sometimes it takes 'vandals' painting stuff on walls to bring to attention something that happens in society when the media doesn't bother their arse, cover-up definitely comes to mind.

 

I wouldn't condemn the Rangers support for 'chanting' the message today, especially after what we are all learning how serious the problem of child abuse was in football and how it has been covered-up.

 

The BJK 'campaign' from 13 years ago stitched in when the Savile scandal broke some years later and pictures emerged on the powerful internet of Savile at Parkhead.

 

The media in this country of ours didn't even attempt to print the fact and to their shame came to an agreement to completely cover it up.

 

If it needs some bloke to spray paint a wall to bring it to my attention, then fans chanting it at a football match has no problem with me...

 

Is it point scoring?

 

Maybe not.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Can you point me to the section of the Terrorism Act which would deal with their supposed illegal singing ? I just took a look at it and couldn't find anything. Be specific please because whilst we know that Celtic get away with a lot it would surprise that they actually get away with illegal acts of promoting Terrorism, particularly when it is encapsulated within legislation to prevent it.

 

Id suggest the section below from the 2000 Act would be a competent charge - though only the courts themseves could decide whether such singing qualified as "support" in the broadest terms of the Act. The requirement for it to be a proscribed organisation is of course met.

 

[der Berliner 3,247]

Craig, I value your opinion and am not out to change it.

 

As for the Terrorist Act 2000 and 2006, as well as proscribed organisations, I cite myself (in full) from another thread. This is for reference and I have, right now, not that much time debating it.

 

+ + +

 

On their website, the Green Brigade states: “The Group opposes the reactionary and draconian ‘Offensive Behaviour at Football Act’ implemented in 2012, which specifically targets Irish Republican songs from the Celtic support.

 

“The legislation was a deliberate attack on the Celtic support with the Green Brigade facing the brunt of it.”

 

Let me quote the Terrorism 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.

 

(2) A person commits an offence if—

 

(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and

 

(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—

 

(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or

 

(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or 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.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1

 

And let me add ... Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

 

What is a proscribed organisation?

 

A. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:

• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;

• prepares for terrorism;

• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or

• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

 

What is meant by ‘terrorism’ in the proscription context?

 

A. “Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

What determines whether proscription is proportionate?

 

A. If the statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will consider whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors, including:

 

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;

• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;

• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;

• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and

• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

 

Irish Republican Army

Continuity Army Council

Cumann na mBan

Fianna na hEireann

Irish National Liberation Army

Irish People's Liberation Organisation

(page 17 & 18)

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2

 

The only question is ...

WHEN DID SCOTLAND LEAVE THE UK AND IS BEYOND THAT JURISDICTION?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Craig, I value your opinion and am not out to change it.

 

As for the Terrorist Act 2000 and 2006, as well as proscribed organisations, I cite myself (in full) from another thread. This is for reference and I have, right now, not that much time debating it.

 

+ + +

 

 

 

Let me quote the Terrorism 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.

 

(2) A person commits an offence if—

 

(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and

 

(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—

 

(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or

 

(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or 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.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1

 

And let me add ... Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

 

What is a proscribed organisation?

 

A. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation:

• commits or participates in acts of terrorism;

• prepares for terrorism;

• promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or

• is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

 

What is meant by ‘terrorism’ in the proscription context?

 

A. “Terrorism” as defined in the Act, means the use or threat which: involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the act); creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

What determines whether proscription is proportionate?

 

A. If the statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will consider whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors, including:

 

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;

• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;

• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;

• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and

• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

 

Irish Republican Army

Continuity Army Council

Cumann na mBan

Fianna na hEireann

Irish National Liberation Army

Irish People's Liberation Organisation

(page 17 & 18)

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2

 

The only question is ...

WHEN DID SCOTLAND LEAVE THE UK AND IS BEYOND THAT JURISDICTION?

 

I looked at this legislation as well DB but I think the word "publishes"" is key here - ie it is designed to apply to written material

Edited December 27, 2016 by D'Artagnan

[barca72 440]

I looked at this legislation as well DB but I think the word "publishes"" is key here - ie it is designed to apply to written material

 

Publishing

Publishing is the dissemination of literature' date='[b'] music, or information[/b]—the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same. Also, the word publisher can refer to the individual who leads a publishing company or an imprint or to a person who owns/heads a magazine.

 

D'Art, going by that definition of publishing I would think that the Lord Advocate could severely punish anyone singing the praises of a proscribed organization.

n.b.

Her Majesty's Advocate, known as the Lord Advocate (Scottish Gaelic: Morair Tagraidh, Scots: Laird Advocat), is the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland for both civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. He or she is the chief public prosecutor for Scotland and all prosecutions on indictment are conducted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, nominally in the Lord Advocate's name.The officeholder is one of the Great Officers of State of Scotland. The current Lord Advocate is The Rt Hon. James Wolffe, QC.

Edited December 27, 2016 by barca72

[D'Artagnan 173]

Publishing

Publishing is the dissemination of literature, music, or information—the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same. Also, the word publisher can refer to the individual who leads a publishing company or an imprint or to a person who owns/heads a magazine.

 

D'Art, going by that definition of publishing I would think that the Lord Advocate could severely punish anyone singing the praises of a proscribed organization.

n.b.

Her Majesty's Advocate, known as the Lord Advocate (Scottish Gaelic: Morair Tagraidh, Scots: Laird Advocat), is the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland for both civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. He or she is the chief public prosecutor for Scotland and all prosecutions on indictment are conducted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, nominally in the Lord Advocate's name.The officeholder is one of the Great Officers of State of Scotland. The current Lord Advocate is The Rt Hon. James Wolffe, QC.

 

Hmmm Im not convinced on that bud = the wording suggests , in my opinion, prepared material rather than singing - but I could be wrong.

 

I remember getting a lecture from a leading advocate which always stuck with me throughout my career - always go for the simplest constructed charge as its the most difficult for the defence to break down

[craig 5,199]

Id suggest the section below from the 2000 Act would be a competent charge - though only the courts themseves could decide whether such singing qualified as "support" in the broadest terms of the Act. The requirement for it to be a proscribed organisation is of course met.

 

 

Thanks D'Art. That was the section I presumed that dB was speaking of - though hopefully dB will confirm.

 

Given that, I think it would be pretty difficult to get any kind of conviction on the basis of "support for a proscribed organization". As you say, proscribed organization is beyond doubt - singing songs about them though isn't necessarily "inviting support" - it would be a difficult charge to bring to bear fruit.

 

I don't think that dB's argument is on as solid ground as dB thinks in this regard.

[craig 5,199]

The fact we are effectively impartial bystanders and yet can't agree on whether it is contravention of the Terrorism Act should tell us that it isn't black and white as to whether their songs are illegal.

 

But we are getting off-topic (probably my fault)

[der Berliner 3,247]

I've underlined the IMHO interesting parts in the link/post above, even though it is the Terrorism Act 2006.

Edited December 28, 2016 by der Berliner