Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'd fire that question back at you. How do you ensure that clubs are held accountable for their fans? Under a Lawwell controlled SFA/SPFL Rangers will be the prime recipient of punishment for strict liability so another solution is required.

 

So who's the politician now then?

 

Your assertion is pure speculation.

 

That's just a non answer. My answer is strict liability. What's yours?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It can work well. the fact that UEFA have found Celtic guilty 10+ times doesn't mean that the SFA/SPFL will though.

 

Many agree with the principle. It's just how that would be applied in Scotland that would be the issue.

 

Until it becomes the rule (which it will in the next year or two), then there is absolutely zero evidence that it would not be applied or applied fairly. Everything else is just pure speculation.

[Bluedell 5,366]

So who's the politician now then?

 

Your assertion is pure speculation.

 

That's just a non answer. My answer is strict liability. What's yours?

Your assertion is pure speculation as well.

 

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is opening the door on an open season on Rangers certainly isn't and we would be worse off than we are now.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,366]

Until it becomes the rule (which it will in the next year or two), then there is absolutely zero evidence that it would not be applied or applied fairly. Everything else is just pure speculation.

 

There is evidence. Look at how we have been treated over the past 7 years. What more evidence do you need?

 

It's pure speculation by you that the attitude and approach of the SFA and SPFL are going to change when there's no evidence to suggest that it will.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Darther is spot on.

 

FS is posing the wrong question and he knows that full well.

 

UEFA have sanctioned Celtic 10 times for the improper conduct of their fans; you can argue all day about the level of fines or whether they should have led to more severe punishments; but the recent fine is the highest imposed on them. I agree the fines should be much higher and I agree that they should be accumulated and/or lead to closure of areas of the ground etc etc but that is a different argument. To be perfectly honest much more serious incidents have occurred in places like Milan and Bratislava leading to closures and perhaps UEFA want to keep a sense of proportion.

 

So this is clear and unequivocal evidence that strict liability does indeed work, inasmuch as Celtic have been punished 10 times for the unacceptable conduct of their fans in European games versus nil under the "reasonably practicable" rule in Scotland.

 

Thank you FS.

 

The prosecution rests.

And their behaviour is getting worse.

 

So how is it working.

 

 

[craig 5,199]

So who's the politician now then?

 

Your assertion is pure speculation.

 

That's just a non answer. My answer is strict liability. What's yours?

 

Your assertion that it will be applied evenly is more speculation than Bluedell's assertion. The anecdotal evidence supports Bluedell's assertion more than it supports yours.

 

The answer is, for me at least - "strongly believing that strict liability will be unfairly applied to Rangers I prefer the current arrangement where nobody takes responsibility for anything".

[craig 5,199]

Your assertion is pure speculation as well.

 

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is opening the door on an open season on Rangers certainly isn't and we would be worse off than we are now.

 

And that is the part that BH flatly refuses to see. He becomes an ostrich at the very suggestion.

 

We have YEARS of evidence of anti-Rangers behaviours at the highest echelons of the game - yet somehow BH believes that strict liability provides some kind of utopia and becomes the panacea - Rangers will be treated fairly and equitably.... when did that last ACTUALLY happen ??

[colinstein 294]

So who's the politician now then?

 

Your assertion is pure speculation.

 

That's just a non answer. My answer is strict liability. What's yours?

 

remember the tim who ran onto the pitch and chained himself to the goalpost. We were playing an Israellie team. We got done for it. What's to stop them doing it again

[craig 5,199]

The issue with all of this is fairly straight forward.

 

BH is a proponent of strict liability. He believes that Rangers will be treated fairly and equitably - DESPITE the evidence to the contrary.

 

Whilst....

 

Those of us who don't believe in strict liability do so because of the empirical and anecdotal evidence of how unfairly and unbalanced Rangers have been treated in the last decade.

 

One chooses to "sing with the fairies" whilst the rest of us choose to look at the facts over the last few years and be more than just a little skeptical.

[Darthter 542]

How is the Strict liability working on other clubs throughout England & Europe??? Are Ceptic the exception to the rule???

 

I think another question has to be asked as well. With the latest fine being imposed, what are the SFA/SPFL doing about it. Surely this constitutes bringing the game into disrepute???

Players/managers can be reprimanded under the "Disprepute" banner for making comment(s) etc, yet continued misbehaviour of Ceptic fans in Euro competition doesn't contravene this. Does it come under the "reasonably practical" scenario, whereby under Scottish rules, the club did everything they could to prevent the actions of their fans, therefore the SFA/SPFL are powerless.

 

I would still think that being on the receiving end of 10 fines in 5 years, is clearly bringing the Scottish game into disrepute.

 

As for whether whether Strict liability works, it is clear in Ceptic's case that it is not acting as a deterrent, but then again nothing seems to deter certain sections of fans - this applies to our fans as well. How often have we heard banned/dubious song being sung, even though they have been told not no???

 

In the case of Ceptic's fines, they have been fined often enough for the same offence, that tougher action should be taken. Why this has not been the case can only be answered by UEFA.