Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

This to me is the important part. The very fact we are discussing whether or not Celtic are an "exception" or not suggests that there is an argument that it isn't being applied fairly or in a balanced fashion. And if you can argue that when talking about UEFA..... then what can you expect when it comes to the SFA/SPFL ????

 

As far as bringing the game into disrepute the Celtic subsidiary, sorry SFA, will be saying that UEFA have dealt with it therefore any further punishment would be "double dipping".

 

Everything you say Darthter points to strict liability not working and, even if one could argue it is working because fines are being levied, your other question then gets to the root issue of "applied fairly".

 

dB in another thread pointed out that St Johnstone got a 14k fine for having a SINGLE Palestinian flag flown at their Europa game... whilst Celtic got a 10k fine (so 4k LESS than St Johnstone) for having a whole section of their ground flying Palestinian flags.

 

So the team in the Europa (where the money is significantly less) gets a heavier fine that the team in the CL (where the money is significantly more) for what is, essentially, a lesser fine. Now.... I would love BH to explain how that constitutes strict liability as "working". It is not a deterrent to the actions and it isn't being applied consistently..... we expect the SFA to be better than UEFA ????

[boabie 230]

" St Johnstone got a 14k fine for having a SINGLE Palestinian flag flown at their Europa game... whilst Celtic got a 10k fine (so 4k LESS than St Johnstone) for having a whole section of their ground flying Palestinian flags. "

 

 

A section of the ground handed over to them by the club for their exclusive use. Therefore, fully sanctioned by the club.

It's one thing for a club to be fined for the actions of their fans. But when the club endorse those actions they should have been hammered by UEFA.

[Darthter 542]

This to me is the important part. The very fact we are discussing whether or not Celtic are an "exception" or not suggests that there is an argument that it isn't being applied fairly or in a balanced fashion. And if you can argue that when talking about UEFA..... then what can you expect when it comes to the SFA/SPFL ????

 

As far as bringing the game into disrepute the Celtic subsidiary, sorry SFA, will be saying that UEFA have dealt with it therefore any further punishment would be "double dipping".

 

Everything you say Darthter points to strict liability not working and, even if one could argue it is working because fines are being levied, your other question then gets to the root issue of "applied fairly".

 

dB in another thread pointed out that St Johnstone got a 14k fine for having a SINGLE Palestinian flag flown at their Europa game... whilst Celtic got a 10k fine (so 4k LESS than St Johnstone) for having a whole section of their ground flying Palestinian flags.

 

So the team in the Europa (where the money is significantly less) gets a heavier fine that the team in the CL (where the money is significantly more) for what is, essentially, a lesser fine. Now.... I would love BH to explain how that constitutes strict liability as "working". It is not a deterrent to the actions and it isn't being applied consistently..... we expect the SFA to be better than UEFA ????

 

I think the discussion over whether it works or not a simple Yes or No asnwer. On the one hand it IS working as fines are being handed out & action is being taken. On the other hand, the actions being taken (in ceptic instance) are not deterring future mis-behaviour.

However, under current Scottish rules, not action would be taken, so whether the system works 100% of the time, it could be argued that it is an improvement over what is in place just now. The effectiveness would increase with harsher penalties.

[Uilleam 5,500]

There is a fallacy to which politicians, members of the chattering classes , and even contributors to this forum are prone. It is the misconception that one may legislate things -problems, issues, bad behaviour, whatever falls short of the societal acceptable standard- out of existence. This misapprehension has existed since the days of the Ten Commandments, and, no I do not mean the 1923, or 1956 Cecil B De Mille versions, but the Mosaic proscriptions of everything from blasphemy to adultery via lying, murder, and rapine, all of which are common today, despite centuries, millennia, of prohibitions by secular (and sacred) law.

 

Putting legislation on the Statute Book will not automatically result in a fair, reasonable, equitable and proportionate outcome.

 

The major issues with legislating are

1. drafting of the statutes; basically governments do not pay enough to have this done properly

2. partly as a result of this, there are inevitable, often innumerable, questions of interpretation

3. these tend to be resolved by

- the Police, in the first instance, whose understanding may be less than nuanced

-the Procurator Fiscal's Service, which might very well 'take a view' on whether prosecution is valid, necessary, or winnable under whichever Act

-the Court, most commonly, I imagine by the Sheriffs of this realm, or High Court judges, or the Lords of Session, or the Supreme Court, even, pro tempore, unto Strasbourg, or Luxembourg

 

The same issues will arise with non statutory authorities - neutral; SFA 'observers', compliance officers, Tribunals independent of the SFA and Clubs, and so forth. (As an aside, Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes? Who will scrutinise these scrutineers?)

 

It is not in the matter of legislation, but in the matter of that legislation's implementation, that there are, or are likely to be, problems, even if the policing, prosecution, and hearings are by non statutory actors.

 

It is my contention, as I have suggested before, that "Strict Liability" in practice will be "Selective Liability". We have seen the Offensive Behaviour Act applied differently, via the organs of justice mentioned above.

There is nothing to suggest that a Strict Liability Act, will in practice, be applied any differently to the OBA, nor that it will be any more effective in curbing whatever behaviour it is that the authorities wish to see checked, as interpreted by the Police, the PFs, and by those on the bench, and/or, another little problem, by the SFA, its officials, and its independent Tribunals.

 

I think that we all know that any Act will be applied with more rigour to one set of supporters than to any others. A racing cert, gentlemen, a racing cert.

[boabie 230]

I think the discussion over whether it works or not a simple Yes or No asnwer. On the one hand it IS working as fines are being handed out & action is being taken. On the other hand, the actions being taken (in ceptic instance) are not deterring future mis-behaviour.

However, under current Scottish rules, not action would be taken, so whether the system works 100% of the time, it could be argued that it is an improvement over what is in place just now. The effectiveness would increase with harsher penalties AGAINST ONE CLUB - RANGERS ! .

 

I fixed that for you Darth.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

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.

It doesnt work on us or celtc.

 

How it works elsewhere is moot.

 

It wont work here.

 

 

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

Continue as is. And you know why I would rather continue as is ? Because RANGERS can say "we did all we could" and the authorities can't fine us, strip titles, withhold prize money etc.

 

I have given a practical answer - I would "better the devil you know as the one you don't" because whether you choose to see it or not the simple reality is that the whole of Scottish football STILL wants to see us dead - they will find ANY reason to hang, draw and quarter us whilst ignoring every offense from every other club.

 

 

Craig I am sorry to have to tell you that the current system is broken for the very reason that you advance to support your argument, namely that it does not result in any action being taken against anyone (with the exception of Motherwell getting a slap on the wrist).

 

The SG have had enough of prevarication by the football authorities and will either adopt or support Mr Dornan's proposed legislation.

 

As for the rest of Scottish Football wanting to see us dead, that's just nonsense. All of Scottish Football including Celtic FC want a healthy Rangers because they need us from a financial point of view and from a competition point of view (in Celtic's case).

[craig 5,199]

Craig I am sorry to have to tell you that the current system is broken for the very reason that you advance to support your argument, namely that it does not result in any action being taken against anyone (with the exception of Motherwell getting a slap on the wrist).

 

The SG have had enough of prevarication by the football authorities and will either adopt or support Mr Dornan's proposed legislation.

 

As for the rest of Scottish Football wanting to see us dead, that's just nonsense. All of Scottish Football including Celtic FC want a healthy Rangers because they need us from a financial point of view and from a competition point of view (in Celtic's case).

 

Really ? Where have you been living for the last 5 years ? It was the Celtic-run cabal that cut off both our legs 5 years ago and if you honestly believe that Celtic want a healthy Rangers from a competitive perspective then you have truly lost your senses.

 

Your zealous defense of strict liability will see nothing more than a witch hunt against Rangers but, as per usual, because you support it you either cant, or more likely refuse to, see what is right in front of you - that Rangers will undoubtedly be mis-treated under strict liability or, as Uilleam succinctly calls it, select liability. Your position means that you would actually rather that Rangers get unfairly punished because you support strict liability than have nobody punished.

 

I just wonder that if, or when, strict liability is introduced and it is proven to be a massive mistake (at least for Rangers) if you will eat humble pie and admit to your error.

 

The support of something still doesn't make it right. Sadly, strict liability DOES make sense - but not when it isn't applied consistently and fairly - which is exactly what will happen in the Celtic-run SFA corridors of power.

 

With all due respect, I just can't agree with you on this.

 

With that I am going to agree to disagree with you and bid you good day.

Edited February 24, 2017 by craig

[Bluedell 5,356]

As for the rest of Scottish Football wanting to see us dead, that's just nonsense. All of Scottish Football including Celtic FC want a healthy Rangers because they need us from a financial point of view and from a competition point of view (in Celtic's case).

 

Let's look at the evidence.

 

Voting us out of the SPL?

Enforcing the 5 way agreement?

 

[Tannochsidebear 2,322]

And that's just 2 to start with.