Nil By Mouth survey on Strict Liability

[Bearman 9]

I wouldn't argue with much of that; but it is a fact that we live in a different world now. Drink driving was acceptable back then, you could call a person from Pakistan a P***, gay marriage was a ludicrous concept etc etc

 

Sure back in the day p***'s and POO*s got hell...today though it's hip to condemn protestants and that's ok no?

 

Ed: Non catholics get a bit of gip too in Scotland.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bearman

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I put Celtic as the club I support...so the survey results will be very misleading then.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to ask what team you support when conducting this sort of thing unless there is a hidden agenda.

 

Well it's your choice of course; but I think that to take the survey and no doubt answer the questions according to your own views and then deliberately mislead in terms of the club you support defeats your object in taking the survey. JMHO.

 

As I said I'm in doubt about the result that NbM want as I'm in doubt about the result that Club 1872 want but I don't think you can say that either has a hidden agenda or if you can then they both have.

[forlanssister 3,062]

So you agree it is a legitimate question, thank you very much.

 

Of course it's a legitimate question but it's also a stupid one in the terms of the integrity of the survey.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Sure back in the day p***'s and POO*s got hell...today though it's hip to condemn protestants and that's ok no?

 

No it isn't and that's why there's a law that says it's an offence in relation to a regulated football match:

 

expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on their membership (or presumed membership) of—

(i)

a religious group,

(ii)

a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,

(iii)

a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

(b)

expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),

©

behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in any of those sub-paragraphs,

(d)

behaviour that is threatening, or

(e)

other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

Edited February 16, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Of course it's a legitimate question but it's also a stupid one in the terms of the integrity of the survey.

 

Absolute nonsense; which shows you know nothing about the integrity of survey results.

 

Read back what you just wrote "it's a legitimate question but it's also a stupid" how can it be stupid if it's legitimate?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Yes strict liability has really worked in their case, really changed their behaviour hasn't it, been a real hindrance to them eh?

 

Would you rather that they hadn't been fined at all, as would be the case in Scotland for the same offences because "reasonably practicable" provides complete defence?

[forlanssister 3,062]

Well it's your choice of course; but I think that to take the survey and no doubt answer the questions according to your own views and then deliberately mislead in terms of the club you support defeats your object in taking the survey. JMHO.

 

As I said I'm in doubt about the result that NbM want as I'm in doubt about the result that Club 1872 want but I don't think you can say that either has a hidden agenda or if you can then they both have.

 

Nil by Mouth has had a hidden agenda since it's inception, there is no way on earth you could have been RST Secretary and not been aware of that.

 

I support wholeheartedly, Tannochsidebear's request to fully participate.

 

I suspect I have related this tale before on this forum, but I consider it worth repeating.

 

Fifteen years past, during the several month period establishing the RST; Nil by Mouth's anti-sectarianism presentations were considered by many to be particularly one sided. Assisting in the establishment of the RST, was a full time Trade Union official. He suggested extending an invitation to Nil by Mouth to attend an embryonic RST Board meeting. Concurrently, he penned two letters to Nil by Mouth; one purporting to be from a Sellik supporter, telling of constant sectarian abuse in his place of employment. The other was the same story from a Bear. The full time TU rep' received a reply from then Nil By Mouth Chair, Helen Miller within the week, requesting as much meat on the bones reference his Yahoo persona. He received no reply as a Rangers supporter. He issued further correspondence, in fact another two letters as a Bear, and still received no reply.

 

Helen Miller sent her Deputy to the Board meeting and we ambushed him with the above. It was excruciating for him, particularly when one of the attendees(whom had attended a recent Nil by Mouth presentation) pushed the advantage as to why no examples of sectarianism that manifests itself in violence pertaining to Rangers supporters being the victims, had been utilised in said presentation? Three incidents involving Sellik supporters had been presented. NbM's Deputy asked for any examples, and one that had lead to the death of a Bear was provided.

 

Subsequent NbM presentations included given example and Helen Miller remained on the back foot during the remainder of her tenure as Chair.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You're so out of touch with the average fan that it beggars belief.

 

And that's an offence now as well is it?

 

Report me to your favourite polis and get me arrested then.

[forlanssister 3,062]

Would you rather that they hadn't been fined at all, as would be the case in Scotland for the same offences because "reasonably practicable" provides complete defence?

 

What difference have the multiple fines made?

 

Celtic were so disgusted at their behaviour that they rewarded them by building a standing section.

[forlanssister 3,062]

And that's an offence now as well is it?

 

Report me to your favourite polis and get me arrested then.

 

No it's not an offence just a sign of ignorance.