Leigh Griffiths won’t face trial over offensive tweet during online spat

[ian1964 10,416]

The Parkhead ace is let-off in tweet slur row.

 

CELTIC star Leigh Griffiths won’t be prosecuted over an offensive tweet – after the charge was dropped FOUR YEARS on.

Griffiths, 26, told Zak Iqbal to ‘f*** off back to your own country’ in a heated spat in 2013 before apologising for the comment.

 

Cops charged him within a month of the tweet but after four years the Crown Office finally said they didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute the striker.

 

The decision comes two years after Griffiths was convicted of starting a vile pub singsong which branded Hearts hero Rudi Skacel a “f***ing refugee”.Last night, a pal of Leigh’s said: “He’s delighted it’s been concluded and is over.”

 

But campaign group Show Racism the Red Card (SRtRC) said: “Examples of racism and prejudice on social media platforms are rarely taken as seriously as they should be.”

 

The Scotland star’s outburst in January 2013 came after he was mocked by Zak for fathering four kids with three different women.

 

Iqbal, of Livingston, wrote ‘How many different birds you got pregnant? You really are such a stupid c***’ and taunted him about his looks.Griffiths wrote: “F*** off back to your own country, ya clown.”

 

Iqbal replied: “I was born and bred in Livingston … and you’re telling me to get back to my own country?”

 

Griffiths quickly backtracked by writing: “Got to apologise to @zaq_iqbal for my comment earlier, was out of order!”

 

Griffiths was charged under section 127 of the Communications Act, which deals with the improper use of electronic communications networks, and faced six months’ jail or a £5,000 fine.

 

But after a lengthy probe by the Crown Office they have dropped proceedings against him.

 

A spokesman for SRtRC said: “Show Racism the Red Card upholds the belief that the tweet posted by Leigh Griffith in 2013 is unacceptable and is a sad reflection of attitudes that still persist among some members of society.

 

“At the time, the campaign in Scotland issued a statement which included the assertion that SRtRC is not a policy-making or punitive body but that we hoped that the matter could be dealt with swiftly and commensurately by the relevant authorities.

 

“It is disappointing that this has clearly not been the case, and at the time of writing, the prosecutors have not publicised the reasons why they felt that the evidence was insufficient, therefore SRtRC is not in a position to comment further.

 

“As an anti-racism education charity, SRtRC believes that education is essential in helping individuals to better understand why all manifestations of racism are unacceptable, irrespective of the methods by which these attitudes are communicated.”

 

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “There are currently no proceedings but the Crown reserves the right to raise proceedings should further evidence become available.”

 

The spokesman refused to discuss why it took so long to come to a decision.

 

The star’s lawyer Liam O’Donnell said: “The striker is currently in Dubai and doesn’t wish to comment.”

In 2015, he issued a grovelling apology for the vile pub singsong which branded Hearts hero Rudi Skacel a “f***ing refugee”.

 

He insisted he meant “no malice” to the Czech player after he started the chant in a pub packed with fellow Hibs fans before an Edinburgh derby.

 

He said: “I am not racist. I got involved in something I shouldn’t have got involved in.

 

“I regret going to the pub and going to the game. I have apologised to Celtic for going to the game and being stupid.

“I am sorry for being involved in that chant, of course I am.

 

“There was no malice intended towards Rudi Skacel. I have apologised for starting the chant.”

 

Furious Celtic bosses docked Griffiths four weeks’ wages after hearing about his involvement in the offensive song.

 

He pled guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in September 2015 to singing a song with offensive lyrics and was admonished.

 

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...r-own-country/

[StuGers 477]

Out of interest has Griffiths ever been punished by the law for any of the things he's done (those mentioned in the article above aren't the only things he's been contacted by the "law" about)?

[ian1964 10,416]

Spot the difference!

 

Judges brand Famine Song 'racist'

 

The controversial Famine Song sung by some Rangers fans is racist, appeal court judges have ruled.

 

The Justiciary Appeal Court upheld a conviction against William Walls over his conduct at a Rangers away match against Kilmarnock last year. The 20-year-old's defence counsel, Donald Findlay QC, had argued the song was free speech.

 

But Lord Carloway said the lyrics called on people to leave Scotland because of their racial origins. Walls was found guilty of breach of the peace, aggravated by religious and racial prejudice, at Kilmarnock District Court in December.

 

The offence related to his behaviour at Rangers' away match at Kilmarnock on 9 November, where he sang the Famine Song.

 

Rangers has asked fans to not to sing the song, which refers to the famine that killed an estimated one million people in Ireland in the 1840s.

Last month, Walls launched a appeal against his conviction.

 

He was represented by Rangers' former vice-chairman, Donald Findlay, who resigned from the Ibrox club in 1999 after he was filmed singing sectarian songs. During the appeal, Mr Findlay argued that a football match was "an organised breach of the peace" and for many supporters "an exchange of pleasantries in the form of abuse is part and parcel of going to the game".

 

He also argued that the Famine Song - which contains the chorus "the famine is over, why don't you go home" - was not racist, but an expression of political opinion permitted under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Offensive sentiment

 

But Lord Carloway, who heard the appeal with temporary judges Alastair Dunlop QC and Brian Lockhart QC, said: "Presence inside a football stadium does not give a spectator a free hand to behave as he pleases. There are limits and the appellant's conduct went well beyond those limits."

 

Referring to the Famine Song, the senior judge said: "The court does not consider that the lyrics of this refrain bear any reasonable comparison to those of 'Flower of Scotland' or indeed 'God Save the Queen'.

 

"Rather they are racist in calling upon people native to Scotland to leave the country because of their racial origins. This is a sentiment which... many persons will find offensive."

 

Lord Carloway added that the appeal judges had no difficulty in accepting the sheriff's conclusion that singing the song's chorus "displays malice and ill-will towards people of Irish descent living in Scotland".

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8109359.stm

 

 

 

"The famine is over why don't you go home?" = Jail

"Fock off back to your own country" = not enough to proceed.

Edited January 10, 2017 by ian1964

[Scott7 5,173]

I respectfully suggest that the learned judges are mistaken in their interpretation of the lyrics which do not give an instruction to listeners to go home but ask the question why they don't. The fact that the famine immigrants were mostly Irish is incidental. There would have been some returning Scottish and English emigres.

 

Would it be legal to shout "Go home ya celts".

 

I'll be expecting a heavy knock on the door at 3 am tomorrow.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Scott7

[der Berliner 3,247]

You wonder whether the Bears shoud give a laldy to all the favourites of the past to the amassed and probably flabbergasted audience in Leipzig this weekend. Far away from any Scottish cop, would-be-offended and journalist on a mission.

[SteveC 150]

You wonder whether the Bears shoud give a laldy to all the favourites of the past to the amassed and probably flabbergasted audience in Leipzig this weekend. Far away from any Scottish cop, would-be-offended and journalist on a mission.

 

In days of social media and mobile phones, they are never far away. Those hoping to make a good impression on Red Bull would faint at the thought that "the Bears should give a laldy to all the favourites of the past".

 

Lets not shoot ourselves in both feet yet a-bloody-gain...................

[SteveC 150]

On the original story itself - how can there "not be enough evidence" if he admits he sent it and apologises for doing so?

[der Berliner 3,247]

In days of social media and mobile phones, they are never far away. Those hoping to make a good impression on Red Bull would faint at the thought that "the Bears should give a laldy to all the favourites of the past".

 

Lets not shoot ourselves in both feet yet a-bloody-gain...................

 

Point is, while there even might be hysteria in the "social media" about this (not least by people who have nothing but ill-will untowards Rangers at heart), those actually attending the game will be watching 8,000 Bluenoses in full voice and will hardly understand (or comprehend) what is being sung. And even if, would they care whether some fainting soul that has no interest in Rangers yet watches the game in some remote place in Scotland - Yahoo shirt on and pen in hand - is being disgusted and annoyed? You see double-standards being applied like there is no tomorrow and these people are not blind either. And they, like you and me know, that no-one will actually walk in anyone's blood because of football. In any case, that was all just a rhethorical remark anyway.

Edited January 10, 2017 by der Berliner

[SteveC 150]

Point is, while there even might be hysteria in the "social media" about this (not least by people who have nothing but ill-will untowards Rangers at heart), those actually attending the game will be watching 8,000 Bluenoses in full voice and will hardly understand (or comprehend) what is being sung. And even if, would they care whether some fainting soul that has no interest in Rangers yet watches the game in some remote place in Scotland - Yahoo shirt on and pen in hand - is being disgusted and annoyed? You see double-standards being applied like there is no tomorrow and these people are not blind either. And they, like you and me know, that no-one will actually walk in anyone's blood because of football. In any case, that was all just a rhethorical remark anyway.

 

You make an important point, however, which is what rhetoric was designed for, after all. We sang after a game in Spain when we were the only ones in the stadium. Idiotically footage of this was uploaded and the club was castigated, ridiculed, once again held up as bigots in press across the UK and landed up in hot water with UEFA.

 

Double standards, yes - but we know those standards are always in play. If we do the same again then the same will happen. It always has and it always will. You'd think it'd be easy to learn.

 

"And even if, would they care whether some fainting soul that has no interest in Rangers yet watches the game in some remote place in Scotland - Yahoo shirt on and pen in hand - is being disgusted and annoyed?"

 

Enough yahoos would pretend to be offended, and the yahoo press would run with it and we'd end up in trouble and shame again.

 

I almost feel like changing "would" to "will" in that last sentence

[Norris Cole 0]

Not that I am in the Leigh Griffiths fan club, but is there not something sinister about potentially facing six months behind bars for making 'offensive' comments online?